Performance of Anchor in Sand With Different Forms of Geosynthetic Reinforcement

Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Accepted manuscript
As a service to our authors and readers, we are putting peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts
(AM) online, in the Ahead of Print section of each journal web page, shortly after acceptance.
Disclaimer
The AM is yet to be copyedited and formatted in journal house style but can still be read and
referenced by quoting its unique reference number, the digital object identifier (DOI). Once
the AM has been typeset, an ‘uncorrected proof’ PDF will replace the ‘accepted manuscript’
PDF. These formatted articles may still be corrected by the authors. During the Production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal relate to these versions also.
Version of record
The final edited article will be published in PDF and HTML and will contain all author
corrections and is considered the version of record. Authors wishing to reference an article
published Ahead of Print should quote its DOI. When an issue becomes available, queuing
Ahead of Print articles will move to that issue’s Table of Contents. When the article is
published in a journal issue, the full reference should be cited in addition to the DOI.
Geosynthetics International
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Submitted: 21 June 2019
Published online in ‘accepted manuscript’ format: 04 February 2020
Manuscript title: Performance of anchor in sand with different forms of geosynthetic
reinforcement
Authors: V. Kishor Kumar and K. Ilamparuthi
Affiliation: Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering Guindy, Anna
University, Chennai, 600 025, India
Corresponding author: V. Kishor Kumar, Department of Civil Engineering, College of
Engineering Guindy, Anna University, Chennai, 600 025, India.
E-mail: vkishorkumar@gmail.com
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
ABSTRACT
This article investigates the uplift resistance of model anchor embedded in sand by varying its density at four
embedment depths (L/D=1, 2, 3, and 4). Such different configurations of geosynthetic reinforcement as single-
layer planar, double-layer planar, geocell, and geocell with basal reinforcement were used and the results were
compared. The inclusion of reinforcement in all configurations led to greater values of the peak and residual
pullout load than the anchor in sand at different densities. Of the reinforcement configurations used, the geocell
placed at the top of the anchor was the most efficient. The shape of uplifted soil mass by the anchor is frustum
of cone with apex angle approximately equal to ’ of sand both in sand bed without and with geocell
encapsulated layer except enlarged size of uplifted mass for the anchor in geocell reinforced bed. The enlarged
size is attributed to wide slab response of combined geocell composite anchor system. An empirical relation was
developed to determine the peak pullout load of the model anchor with reinforcement. The hyperbolic stress–
strain relation was used to predict the pre-peak phase of the uplift load–displacement response and the relation
thus obtained compared well with experimental data irrespective of the embedment ratio and relative densities
of the sand bed.
KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics; model tests; Anchors & anchorages; reinforced soils; sands
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
1 INTRODUCTION
The foundations of structures are subject to axial compression, axial uplift, lateral forces, and
moments along three directions. In general, axial compression and the maximum moment due
to a variety of load combinations govern the design in most cases, where the design of the
foundation for this condition is well understood. There are situations where the combined
forces of uplift and moment are critical forces due to the combinations of load and the
foundations to be designed for them. This is a common problem in the design of foundations
for transmission towers, watchtowers, onshore and offshore wind turbines, and tent-type
roofs. These structures are normally tall, with slender members transferring small axial loads
to their foundations but demanding greater resistance from the soil against uplift forces. In
recent years, structures have been developed that require that the foundations provide an
uplift resistance of more than 10000 kN. In such conditions, attempts are made to enhance
uplift resistance, such as embedding the foundation at greater depth, combining two or more
foundation elements, and improving the resistance of soil by reinforcement. Further design of
the foundation for uplift resistance is complex, and hence attempts are underway to propose a
feasible and safe design procedure.
In early research, the foundations of high-rises were designed to resist uplift forces by
increasing the weight of the foundation (e.g. the Grillage foundation). Research in the early
1960s focused on large-scale models tested in the field (Giffels et al. 1960; Adams and Hayes
1967) to understand the contribution to uplift resistance of the soil in which they were
embedded. These studies concluded that resistance of the footing against uplift was offered
by the weight of the footing and soil above it within the zone of failure. In general, the uplift
resistance of the footing/anchor was increased by enhancing its geometrical features and
depth of embedment. However, these investigations did not yield a feasible approach to the
design of anchors against uplift forces.
Early design procedures for uplift resistance are based on the assumed failure surface, and
one of these is Majer’s (1955) friction cylinder method. Mors (1959) assumed a truncated
cone extending above the anchor. Because neither method yielded satisfactory uplift values
(Turner 1962), researchers focused their attention on understanding the mechanism involved.
Balla (1961) developed an analysis based on observations of failure surfaces through tests on
a scaled-down foundation model.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Laboratory model studies were conducted along lines similar to those in Balla (1961) by
Baker and Kondner (1966), Meyerhof and Adams (1968), Hanna and Carr (1971), Hanna and
Sparks (1973), Das and Seeley (1975a, b), Clemence and Veesaert (1977), Andreadis et al.
(1981), Rowe and Davis (1982), Sutherland et al. (1982), Murray and Geddes (1987), Ghaly
et al. (1991a, b), and Ilamparuthi and Muthukrishnaiah (1999). They have helped better
understand the behaviour of anchors. Giampa et al. (2019) conducted pullout tests to
investigate the effects of circular, square, triangular, and kite-shaped shallow plate anchors in
sand, and concluded that the circular anchor has the highest capacity. The behaviour of full-
scale prototypes were analysed using the centrifugal modelling technique by Ovesen (1981),
Tagaya et al. (1983, 1988), Dickin (1988), and Dickin and Leung (1990,1992). In their study
tests were conducted to represent stress levels corresponding to large scale model and
prototype foundations.
In constrained conditions, increasing the size and depth of an anchor may be neither feasible
nor economical compared with alternative methods, such as grouping and reinforcing
techniques. Studies were carried out on the behaviour of uplift of anchor groups by Hanna et
al. (1972), Khadilkar and Gokhale (1972), Radhakrishna (1976), Das and Jin (1987), Ghaly
and Hanna (1994), and Hanna and Ghaly (1994).
Research has also been conducted on other options to increase the uplift resistance, and has
led to the introduction of geosynthetics (Krishnaswamy and Parashar 1994; Ilamparuthi and
Dickin 2001a, b; Ravichandran et al. 2008; Sivaraman et al. 2014; Khatun and
Chottopadhyay 2010; Consoli et al. 2012; Choudhary and Dash 2013) to the soil-anchor
system as a feasible choice. Studies analysing the behaviour of the plate anchor in a
submerged sand bed reinforced with geocomposite reinforcement showed that this offers
higher uplift resistance than both geogrid and geotextile reinforcements (Krishnaswamy and
Parashar 1991,1994; Ravichandran et al. 2008). Furthermore, reinforcement placed directly
above the anchor results in a higher uplift resistance than at other levels. To increase the
pullout capacity of the model anchor, the introduction of more than one layer of planar
reinforcement does not significantly increase uplift capacity (Krishnaswamy and Parashar
1994; Ravichandran and Ilamparuthi 2008). The inclusion of a layer immediately above the
anchor plate is more economical than providing multiple layers, as reported by Niroumand et
al. (2013). Ilamparuthi and Dickin (2001a, b) conducted an elaborate study on the anchor
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
foundation with geosynthetics, and concluded that the foundation element embedded in a
single geocell provides effective reinforcement in resisting uplift.
Previous studies by Ilamparuthi (1991), Ilamparuthi and Dickin (2001a, b), and Ravichandran
and Ilamparuthi (2008) show that the load displacement behaviour of anchor embedded at a
shallow depth exhibits three-phase behaviour, i.e. pre-peak with a rapid increase in resistance,
post-peak with a gradual decrease in resistance with further displacement, and a residual
phase with not much variation in resistance (i.e. sustained resistance) with increase in the
displacement.
In most research on enhancing the uplift capacity of anchors, geosynthetic reinforcement has
been included as a single or multiple layers. The use of geosynthetic material in the form of
geocell, is increased in recent years. Many research works were carried out to understand the
influence of inclusion of geocell in geotechnical applications (Bathurst and Karpurapu 1993;
Avesani Neto et al. 2013, 2015; Biswas et al. 2013; Moghaddas Tafreshi et al. 2013; Tanyu et
al. 2013; Tavakoli Mehrjardi et al. 2013; Song et al. 2014, 2017, 2018; Indraratna et al. 2015;
Hegde and Sitharam 2015a, 2015b; Moghaddas Tafreshi et al. 2016; Trung Ngo et al. 2016;
Tavakoli Mehrjardi and Motarjemi 2018). However the effects of geocell reinforcement on
uplift capacity of anchors have not been adequately investigated.
In the recent publications (Rahimi et al. 2018a, b; Choudhary et al. 2019 and Moghaddas
Tafreshi et al. 2018) on uplift response of anchors, results of 1 g model tests performed on
plate anchors embedded in geocell reinforced sand were reported.
Choudhary et al. (2019) conducted series of tests on square anchor in geocell reinforced sand
bed with relative density of 70% by varying breadth and height of the geocell for an
embedment depth ratio of 2. The pressure at the top surface of geocell was measured and
confirmed that the anchor embedded in geocell reinforced sand followed the wide slab
response and enhanced the uplift resistance of anchor. The increase in the uplift resistance of
anchor due to geocell reinforcement was quantified in terms of increase in the pressure by
adopting the method proposed by Giroud and Noiray (1981) for geotextile reinforced
unpaved roads. Dash et al. (2001) and Sitharam and Sireesh (2005) extended the said method
to quantify enhanced bearing resistance of footing on geocell reinforced bed.
Effects of a geocell reinforcement on uplift behaviour of square plate anchor embedded in
sand was investigated by Rahimi et al. (2018a) through 1 g model tests. The increase in both
peak and residual capacities of the anchor in presence of geocell layer was quantified. The
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
benefit of reinforcement decreases with increase in depth of embedment as well as with
increase in width of reinforcement. The reason for improvement was attributed to geocell
reinforcement that distributed the stresses to wider area of the reinforced soil bed than anchor
uplifted in unreinforced soil bed. The 1 g model tests performed Rahimi et al. (2018a) were
simulated numerically to demonstrate the response of anchors embedded in sand bed with
and without geocell inclusion. The scale effect of the anchor was addressed (Rahimi et al.
2018b) by analysing near prototype anchors. The additional capacity of the reinforced anchor
was quantified by adopting the failure mechanism established by Ravichandran (2008) and
with the support of finite element analysis a design parameter named ‘geocell mobilisation
factor’ , was evaluated, which is a function of angle of internal friction of sand bed, width
of anchor plate, embedment depth, width of geocell mattress and Young’s modulus of geocell
material.
Cyclic and post cyclic responses of square anchors were illustrated through model tests
conducted on anchors embedded in sand bed with and without geocell reinforcement by
varying Cyclic Load Ratio (CLR) between 0.2 and 0.7 and number of cycles by Moghaddas
Tafreshi et al. (2018). The cumulative displacement of anchor under cyclic load in geocell
reinforced sand bed was reduced significantly and sudden failure of anchor was almost
eliminated for the CLRs’ included in their study.
The articles reviewed for the proposed study are briefly illustrated. Researchers studied
extensively to understand response of anchor foundations embedded in sand and established
design methods. Similarly response of anchor embedded in sand with geosynthetic inclusion
was also reported. However research on anchor with geocell inclusion is limited and ample
scope exists to explore further. Therefore, this article examines the effect of the inclusion of
geocell (three-dimensional (3D) form of geosynthetics) reinforcement on increasing the uplift
resistance of anchor embedded at a shallow depth. The effect of the inclusion of basal
reinforcement beneath the geocell layer is also analysed. The objectives of the research are
fulfilled by performing 1 g model tests on circular model anchor embedded in loose,
medium-dense, and dense sand beds with geocell included as reinforcement. To confirm the
effectiveness of geocell inclusion, tests were also conducted by reinforcing the bed by
including single- and two-layer planar reinforcements.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Details of the test medium, geosynthetic material, the experimental facility developed, and
procedure used for the tests are presented in the subsequent sections. The results of the 1 g
model tests conducted by reinforcing the bed with planar and geocell reinforcements with and
without basal reinforcement are presented and discussed.
2. SCALING LAW FOR 1 g MODEL
The early researchers (Fakher and Jones, 1996; Viswanadham and König 2004; Sireesh et al.
2009, Dash and Bora, 2013; Hegde and Sitharam, 2015c) developed scaling laws for
modelling the response of foundation on geocell reinforcement under axial compression. On
similar lines Dash and Choudhary (2019) developed the scaling laws for geocell reinforced
vertical plate anchors under lateral loading. The parameters of geocell considered in the
above studies were strength and stiffness of geotextile material and size of geocell (length,
breadth and height).
Load carrying capacity of geocell-reinforced anchors (PUr) is significantly influenced by the
following parameters such as embedment depth (L), diameter of anchor (D), displacement
corresponds to peak pullout load (Su), diameter of reinforcement (DR), geocell height (H),
pocket size of geocell (d), strength of geocell (St), stiffness of geocell reinforcement (K),
shear modulus of sand bed (G), effective unit weight of the sand bed (’),angle of internal
friction (’), and peak pullout load of unreinforced anchor (PU). In addition to that the contact
surface area of geocell reinforcement (AR) will also influence the pullout capacity by offering
the frictional resistance between geocell walls and soil during pullout of anchor. Further the
number of pockets covered by the size of the anchor is also another parameter that needs to
be considered in the modelling. Therefore scaling laws for various parameters of geocell
anchor were formulated by including area of geocell and diameter ratio between model
anchor and pocket size of geocell.
The influencing parameters can be written as function of (f)
( )
These 14 parameters have two fundamental dimensions such as length and force, and can be
studied by transforming in to twelve non-dimensional parameters (Buckingham, 1914).
( )
*( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) +
1.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
The scaling relation between diameter of the prototype and model can be described as
2.
Where, N is the scale factor. The term in the Equation 1 gives the similarity between
pocket size of prototype and model can be derived as follows,
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
3.
The similarity between the shear modulus of prototype and model can be established for the
term as follows,
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
4.
Assuming the density of prototype and model to be the same the Equation 4 reduces to
( ) ( )
5.
By application of similarity between prototype and model for the term
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
6.
The parameters such as as L, D, Su, DR, H, and d are linearly varying with model scale ‘N’.
Also the area of geocell reinforcement (AR) and the strength of the geocell (St) used in
prototype should be N2 times that of strength of the geocell used in model.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
The dimensions of model anchor were obtained by adopting above scaling laws for the
prototype rigid anchor of diameter 1 m by adopting scale factor N=10. The size of anchor
model including the parameters related to geocell such as area of reinforcement, pocket size
of geocell and strength of reinforcement are proportionately scaled down and are presented in
Table 1.
3 PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS
The test materials used were river sand as test medium and the geosynthetics used for
fabricating the geocell. The properties of the sand and geocell material are presented below:
3.1 Sand and Sand Bed
The test medium chosen for the study was clean river sand. The minimum and maximum unit
weights were 13.60 kN/m3 and 17.98 kN/m3, respectively. The specific gravity of the sand
was 2.65, which is classified as poorly-graded sand (SP) based on the Unified Classification
System. Tests were conducted in loose, medium-dense, and dense sand conditions, having
relative densities close to 35%, 54%, and 75%, respectively. The required densities were
achieved by controlled pouring of sand using funnel type pouring apparatus with a constant
height of drop for loose dense condition. The medium dense and the dense sand beds were
achieved by both controlled pouring and tamping methods. The densities achieved were
measured by adopting the method followed by previous researchers (Krishnaswamy and
Parashar 1994; Ilamparuthi et al. 2002; Ravichandran and Ilamparuthi 2008) and also
confirmed the uniformity of compaction by conducting light cone penetration test at a few
points on the prepared sand bed. The difference in relative densities of each case was within
±2%. The dry density, void ratio (e), relative density (ID), and angle of internal friction ( )
corresponding to the dense, medium-dense, and loose conditions are presented in Table 2.
The angle of shearing resistance reported in the Table 2 are average values of several trials
conducted in direct shear box as per ASTM standard D3080 under normal stress ranges
between 20 kN/m2 and 40 kN/m2 to represent the effect of low stress levels in the model tests.
To apply the load to produce normal stress less than 50 kN/m2 the existing load arrangement
in the conventional shear test apparatus was modified. The effect of stress levels on strength
of sand was analysed by Dickin and Leung (1990) and reported higher friction angle for sand
tested at low stress levels and the maximum difference will be close to 4o for the increase in
stress level from 50 kN/m2 to 400 kN/m2. However strength of sand medium was measured at
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
low stress levels, therefore effect of stress reduction in the tests on model scale level is
considered in the study.
3.2 Geocell Material
Earlier researchers have used commercially available geocells having shape of diamond
pattern and standard pocket size (e.g. 110 mm x 110 mm x 100 mm, 250 mm × 160 mm x
150 mm). Since the pocket size of the geocell is larger than the size of anchor chosen for the
study; it covered mostly single pocket of the geocell. If the geocells of same size are adopted
in prototype, more number of pockets will be covered by the real size foundation, which
deviates the geometric similarities and the response of prototype foundation may not be
similar to the response observed in 1 g model tests. Therefore cylindrical shape geocell was
fabricated manually using geonet material with its outer diameter equal to twice the diameter
of the model anchor (D) and a height (H) of 0.5 D (Figure 1). The geocell thus made contain
24 pockets as shown in Figure 2. Number of pockets in the inner and outer rings are 8 and 16
respectively. The eight pockets of inner ring of geocell fits exactly over the anchor plate. The
geocell used in this study was fabricated using locally-available geonet material. The aperture
of the geonet was diamond shaped and the size of the opening was 8 x 6 mm. The tensile
strength of the material was 7.7 kN/m at a strain of 20%. The extension was 3.2% for 50%
peak load. The basal reinforcement used in the study was also made of the same geonet
material.
4 EXPERIMENTAL ARRANGEMENT
Figure 3 shows the overall experimental arrangement for the pullout tests. A model steel tank
of size 0.74 m x 0.74 m x 0.65 m was used to perform the tests. The steel tank was placed in a
loading frame of capacity 50 kN fabricated for this study. A separate loading yoke
arrangement was formed to pull the circular model anchor of size 100 mm using a hydraulic
jack with a capacity of 20 kN. The jack was operated manually using a hydraulic pump. A
proving ring with a capacity of 2.25 kN was placed in between the loading yoke and the
hydraulic jack to observe the mobilised pullout resistance on the anchor against pull. Dial
gauges were placed on the plate connected to the yoke to measure the displacement of the
anchor. The length of travel of the dial gauges was 50 mm with a least count of 0.01 mm.
The sand bed was prepared to the required density using sand pouring and compaction. The
tests were conducted on the anchor both in sand and geocell inclusion by varying the
embedded depth, L (= D, 2D, 3D, and 4D) from the sand bed surface, and by varying the
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
relative density of the sand medium (35%, 54%, and 75%). Once the desired depth had been
reached from the bottom of the tank, the anchor arrangement consisting of the loading yoke
was placed in position, and sand was poured above the anchor in layers and compacted to
achieve the required density of the bed.
To decide the rate of pull of anchor, the rate of pullout loading adopted by the previous
researchers (Murray and Geddes, 1987; Petereit 1987; Ilamparuthi 1991; Krishnaswamy and
Parashar 1994; Ilamparuthi and Muthukrishnaiah 2001; Ravichandran and Ilamparuthi 2008;
Choudhary et al. 2019) was reviewed and was between 0.008 and 1.5 mm/s. Among the
researchers Ilamparuthi (1991) reported that the influence of rate of pull was significant only
in submerged condition, when the rate of pull was increased to 1.5 mm/s from 0.5 mm/s.
Therefore in this study a rate of pull of 0.01 mm/s was adopted and test was conducted by
lifting the model anchor by operating the jack at an approximate rate of 0.01 mm/s. The test
condition was strain controlled to capture the response after peak resistance had been
reached. The load and displacement readings were continuously recorded at regular time
intervals until the displacement of the anchor was 40 mm from its initial position. A similar
procedure was adopted for the tests on the anchor with geosynthetic inclusion with different
arrangements/configurations.
Half cut model tests were also conducted in this study to observe the geometry of uplifted
soil mass, based on the procedure adopted by Ilamparuthi and Muthukrishnaiah (1999) and
Ilamparuthi et al. (2002). Tests were conducted in sand bed at an embedment depth of 2D, for
three relative densities (ID = 35%, 54%, and 75%) with and without geocell reinforcement.
Sand bed was prepared in layers by adopting the procedure as explained previously. A line of
black coloured beads was placed flush with the Perspex face between each layer of sand
above the anchor for delineating geometry of rupture surface. A continuous pull was applied
to the anchor at the rate of 0.01 mm/s. The movement of the beads were recorded at different
stages of pull. The geometry of failure surface generated was recorded.
5 REINFORCEMENT CONFIGURATIONS
Four configurations of reinforcement inclusion were considered in this study. They were
planar reinforcement (single and double layer), geocell reinforcement, and geocell with basal
reinforcement, as shown in Figure 4. The diameter of the reinforcement and embedment
depth of the anchor were kept constant at 2D (= 200 mm) for arrangements of the
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
reinforcement to identify an efficient reinforcement arrangement that offers higher uplift
resistance irrespective of the density of the test medium.
Five series of tests were conducted. The first series was on model anchors embedded in sand.
In the second and third series, tests were carried out by including single-layer planar
reinforcement and double-layer planar reinforcement, respectively. In the fourth and fifth
series, tests were conducted on the bed with geocell inclusion without basal and with basal
reinforcement. All the above series of tests were performed at three densities.
In tests using a single layer, the planar reinforcement was kept just above the model anchor,
whereas in the double-layer arrangement, one more layer was placed at a height of 0.5 D (=
50 mm) above the model anchor. In cases of geocell without and with basal reinforcement,
they were placed directly above the anchor as in Figures 4d and 4e.
6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Five series of tests were conducted and the response of the anchor against pullout
displacement was monitored by uplifting the model at a rate of 0.01 mm/s. The responses
thus obtained are presented and discussed below in the following sequence: the response of
the model anchor in unreinforced sand bed, response in reinforced sand bed, and a
comparison of its responses in reinforced and unreinforced beds.
6.1 Response of Model Anchor in Unreinforced Sand Bed
6.1.1 Load Displacement Behaviour
To analyse the behaviour of the model anchor with reinforcement, the model anchor without
reinforcement was studied for four embedment ratios (L/D) at three relative densities and the
values of the peak pullout load, the displacement corresponded to the peak and the residual
load are presented in Table 3. Figure 5 shows the pullout load–displacement response of the
anchor embedded in medium-dense sand at embedment ratios of 1, 2, 3, and 4. The load–
displacement curves exhibited three-phase behaviour for all tests except the one conducted in
loose dense sand bed at an embedment ratio of 4. In the initial phase, the resistance increased
rapidly and reached peak resistance, which was a pre-peak region. The reduction in resistance
with displacement (i.e. strain-softening response) was the second phase where the reduction
in resistance was gradual. There was a third phase, in which the resistance either remained
nearly constant with displacement or exhibited an oscillating response (decrease and increase
in resistance successively with displacement), but the average resistance remained constant.
The third phase was the residual phase.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
For the test in loose dense sand with L/D=4, the response comprised two phases: a rapid
increase in resistance until it reached the peak, and the maintenance of nearly the same
resistance or rate of reduction in resistance with insignificant displacement. The initial phase
of the curve before reaching the peak was the pre-peak phase and the region of sustained
resistance after the peak is known as post-peak resistance. Similar behaviours have been
reported in work by Ilamparuthi and Dickin (2001) for belled piles embedded in sand at a
shallow depth.
The pullout load-displacement curve obtained from the tests resembles to stress strain
behaviour of dense sand, which can be characterised by general shear failure, as described by
Ilamparuthi and Muthukrishnaiah (1999), Ilamparuthi et al. (2002) and Ravichandran et al.
(2008). In initial phase the increase in load is attributed to the lateral confinement due to
vertical stress, because of which the resistance in lateral movement of soil particles offer
stiffer response. Further increase in stress as pushes the soil particle move laterally with
increase in volume around the anchor until peak stress, the resistance obtained due to angle of
internal friction and degree of interlocking. In post peak, the decrease in degree of
interlocking causes reduction in resistance with increase in displacement. The soil particles
move radially away from the axis of pull (Ilamparuthi and Muthukrishnaiah 1999) with
increase in displacement in residual phase without much variation in pullout resistance. On
the other hand, the gradual increase in in resistance in pre-peak followed by very slowly
decreasing residual post peak (two phase load-displacement response) similar to stress-strain
behaviour of loose sand, categorised by local shear failure for embedment depth of 4.
Particularly in loose sand at residual phase there exists fluctuations in resistance, this
behaviour can be attributed to the collapse and flow of sand towards the gap created below
the model at large displacements. Similar load-displacement behaviour has been reported by
previous investigators (Dickin and Leung, 1990; Ilamparuthi and Dickin, 2001a).
The peak pullout loads in medium-dense sand at embedment ratios of 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 56.6
N, 131.5 N, 384.6 N, and 684.4 N, respectively and the corresponding displacements were
1.22 mm, 4.61 mm, 8.93 mm, and 14.62 mm. The residual loads at a displacement of 40 mm
were 26.8 N, 56.6 N, 246.7 N, and 591.3 N for embedment ratios of 1, 2, 3, and 4
respectively. The peak pullout loads for embedment ratios of 2, 3, and 4 were 2.3, 6.8, and
12.1 times those for the anchor with embedment ratio of 1.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
6.1.2 Relation between Pullout Load and Embedment Depth
A comparison in terms of peak pullout load among different embedment ratios for the model
anchor in unreinforced sand bed is presented in Figure 6. It is evident that the peak pullout
load increased with an increase in the embedment ratio and the density of the test medium.
The load–displacement curves for all embedment ratios were more or less similar to
variations in the peak pullout load with corresponding displacements.
The peak pullout load, PU, is generally expressed as a dimensionless number known as the
breakout factor, Nqf, defined as follows:
7.
where A is the plan area of the model anchor (= ), L is the depth of embedding, and
is the effective unit weight of the sand bed. The breakout factor for the tests conducted is
presented in Figure 7. This factor increased with an increase in the embedment ratio and the
density of sand. An incremental increase in the breakout factor is higher for dense sand than
medium-dense and loose sands. This response is attributed to resistance offered by the
interlocking between the sand particles in dense condition. Further, the rate of increase in the
breakout factor is higher at higher embedment ratios as shown in Figure 7.
The first phase (pre-peak phase) of the load displacement response curve was non-
dimensionalised. The resistance of the anchor, P, and displacement, S, were normalised by
the peak pullout load, PU, and the corresponding displacement, Su, respectively. The relation
between non-dimensionalised resistance, P/PU, and displacement, S/Su, is presented in Figure
8, which typifies the rectangular hyperbolic response. It is similar to the stress–strain
response of soil as recognized by Kondner (1963). A rectangular hyperbola similar to that of
the stress–strain relationship recognised by Kondner (1963) provides a reasonable fit with the
data. The hyperbolic transformation shown in Figure 9 yields the following relation:
( ⁄ )
( ( ⁄ ))
8.
where P is the pullout load at a displacement of S, PU the peak pullout load at a displacement
of Su, and C=0.042 and m=0.971. Equation 8 can be used to generate the load–displacement
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
curve for a given model anchor with a given diameter and depth of embedding when PU and
Su are known.
6.2 Response of Model Anchor in Reinforced Sand Bed
6.2.1 Response of Model Anchor in Planar Reinforced Sand Bed
The tests were conducted by including planar reinforcement with single and double layers
(Figure 4b and 4c, respectively) placed above the model anchor to analyse behaviour. Figure
10 shows the load–displacement behaviour of the anchor in the single and double layers of
planar reinforcement in medium-dense sand compared with its response in unreinforced sand
at an embedment ratio of 2. The peak pullout load was 207.9 N and the corresponding
displacement at peak load was 4.75 mm for the anchor embedded in medium-dense sand with
single-layer reinforcement. The peak pullout load was 224.8 N in double-layer reinforcement
and the displacement at peak load was 10.14 mm.
The percentage improvement in peak pullout load was 63.9% for single-layer reinforcement.
For double-layer inclusion, the improvement was 78.1% of the peak pullout load of the model
anchor in unreinforced medium-dense sand. The peak pullout load in double-layer
reinforcement was 1.09 times that in the single-layer reinforcement. The shape of the load–
displacement response of the anchor in reinforced sand was almost identical to that observed
in unreinforced sand. The pullout load increased rapidly with little displacement and reached
the peak load, and the pullout load decreased gradually with displacement to a residual value.
However, the rate of decrease of resistance in the residual phase was less than in the
unreinforced sand bed.
Based on tests conducted at three densities for L/D=2, it is evident that the displacement
corresponding to the peak pullout load was higher in the case of double-layer reinforcement
than single-layer reinforcement. This response was due to the additional layer of
reinforcement that provided additional confinement to the sand between the layers of
reinforcement. It also induced a strain-hardening response to the anchor. No major increase in
the peak pullout load was observed with the addition of a layer, but there was an increase in
the area below the curve in the post-peak region, i.e. a reduction in the pullout load occurred
immediately after reaching the peak pullout load in single-layer reinforcement, but in case of
double-layer reinforcement, the peak load was sustained for larger displacements as shown in
Figure 10. The increase in the pullout resistance due to inclusion of reinforcement is
attributed to frictional resistance mobilized on the surface of reinforcement which in turn
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
alter the volume of sand involved in the failure mechanism that is higher than that in
unreinforced condition. The reinforcement placed at top of the anchor was lifted along with
upward movement of the anchor, due to this, the soil above the anchor in this part was also
pulled out and hence offered resistance against pulling. However during upward displacement
of anchor, the reinforcement which was in perfect contact with the soil, pulled towards the
anchor offers additional resistance through its top and bottom surfaces and even prevents the
lifting of reinforcement continuously and simultaneously. Almost similar behaviour was
reported by Ravichandran and Ilamparuthi (2008) from their study on response of strip
anchor tested in sand bed with single and multiple layers of geosynthetics.
Similar non-dimensionalised load–displacement responses for the model anchor reinforced
with single- and double-layer planar reinforcements for loose dense, medium-dense, and
dense sand beds are presented in Figures 11 and 12, which also typify the rectangular
hyperbolic response. The relation presented in Equation 8 can be used for the planar
reinforced case. From Figure 12, the values of C and m were 0.026 and 0.985, respectively.
6.2.2 Response of Model Anchor with Geocell without and with Basal Reinforcement
In this study, the problem of an ineffective increase in uplift capacity by adding more than
one layer of planar reinforcement was solved by changing the form of reinforcement
inclusion using geocell made of geogrid over the model anchor. The geocell without and with
basal reinforcement was fabricated using the same geogrid material and placed above the
model anchor, and tests were conducted to analyse its behaviour in comparison with the
unreinforced model anchor. The diameter of reinforcement was kept constant at DR = 2D, and
the density of sand inside the geocell pocket was kept identical to the density of the
surrounding sand bed.
Figure 13 shows the load–displacement behaviour of the anchor in the geocell without and
with basal reinforcement in medium-dense sand in comparison with the response of the
anchor in unreinforced sand at an embedment ratio of 2. The peak pullout load and
corresponding displacement were 313.5 N and 3.98 mm, respectively, for the sand bed
reinforced with the geocell. For the sand bed reinforced using the geocell with basal
configuration, the peak pullout load was 349.5 N and the corresponding displacement was 4
mm. The resistance offered by geocell reinforcement was high compared with two layers of
planar reinforcement, although the increase in the reinforcement area ratio (Ar) (= area of
reinforcement/area of model anchor) varied from 8 to 15.4. The increase in peak pullout load
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
was about 1.71 and 2.38 times (ID = 54%) that in the unreinforced model anchor, and this
significant increase can be attributed to the three -dimensional form of geocell, having twice
the diameter of model anchor (D= 100 mm) including increase in the combined stiffness of
anchor geocell system because of sand just above the anchor is encapsulated in the geocell.
The additional resistance in the case of the geocell with basal reinforcement can be attributed
to the resistance offered by the basal reinforcement against the free movement of sand from
the outer row of the pockets, and to the increase in the weight of sand uplifted by its retention
in the pockets.
The shapes of the load–displacement response of the anchor reinforced with the geocells
without and with basal reinforcement were similar to those observed in unreinforced sand
with an increase in peak pullout load. However, the peak pullout load of the geocell with
basal configuration was 11.5% higher than that without basal reinforcement for the medium-
dense condition as shown in Figure 13. Moreover, the increase in peak pullout load was
138.4% for the geocell without basal reinforcement and 165.8% for that with basal
reinforcement, when compared with the unreinforced model anchor of L/D=2 in the medium-
dense sand bed. Almost similar response was reported by Choudhary et al. (2019) except for
the case of geocell+geotextile basal reinforcement. Adding geotextile basal layer to the
geocell resulted in sustained resistance due to prevention of downward movement of soil
through the geocell+basal configuration.
The uplift resistance of anchor embedded in geocell reinforced bed is much higher than the
case of unreinforced sand for identical condition. This improvement is attributed to
interaction between the sand and geocell inclusion. The sands filled in the pockets are in
confined state. The geocell encapsulated sand layer that included just above the plate anchor
enhanced the stiffness of anchor geocell system and the combined action of anchor plate and
geocell composite (encapsulated sand layer) exhibited wide slab response while anchor is
uplifted for the configuration and stiffness of geocell included. This rigid wide slab behaviour
is responsible for the increase in the uplift resistance. This can be observed from the
geometry of failure surface recorded in the half cut model test as shown in Figure 14. The
geometry of uplifted sand mass was close to a shape of a frustum of cone with the apex angle
almost equal to the angle of shearing resistance of the sand (Figure 14a) for the anchor (half
cut model) tested in sand without geocell inclusion. The observed shape of uplifted mass is
almost similar to that observed in unreinforced sand by several researchers (Meyerhof and
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Adams, 1968; Sutherland, 1988; Ilamparuthi and Muthukrishnaiah, 1999; Rahimi et al.,
2018a). In tests with geocell the geometry of the uplifted mass was similar to the shape
delineated in the unreinforced condition except increase in the size of uplifted mass (Figure
14b). This observation on the rupture surface shows wide slab behaviour for the anchor with
geocell inclusion. Thus the resistance to uplift of geocell supported anchor is the sum of the
weight of soil contained in the uplifted part, weight of soil in the geocell pockets and vertical
component of shearing resistance along the outer periphery. However the reduction in the
uplift resistance beyond certain displacement is attributed to movement of sand towards the
gap created at the base of geocell while lifting, reduction in the size of uplifting mass due to
continuous collapse of sand in the region of shear band (rupture plane) and reduction in the
frictional resistance of sand because of larger displacement (i.e. resistance of sand is
travelling from peak to residual phase).
The contribution of reinforcement is quantified by separating the resistance of sand from the
total resistance measured. The variation of resistances offered by the reinforcement and sand
medium are presented in Figure 15 for loose and dense sand conditions for embedment ratios
of 1, 2, and 3. The variation of resistance offered by the reinforcement with displacement
follows almost identical trend as that of sand for both the densities at three embedment ratios
except for the embedment ratio of 3 in loose sand. The resistance offered by the geocell (PR)
is higher than the resistance offered by the sand (P) for embedment ratio of 1 irrespective of
the anchor displacement. Whereas for the embedment ratio of 3 offered by the geocell is less
for all the displacements in dense sand and in loose sand the resistance is lesser beyond peak
resistance. In case of embedment ratio of 2 the resistance of geocell is higher till the
displacement of anchor close to 20mm there after it is less. The similar trend was observed
for anchor tested in medium dense sand. The maximum additional resistance offered by the
reinforcement is presented in Table 4 and the values presented show the effect of
reinforcement with density of sand and depth of embedment of anchor. The effect of
reinforcement on pullout resistance is more significant in loose sand as well as for the
embedment ratios less than or equal to two.
The normalised additional resistance (PR/P) due to geocell reinforcement with displacement
is presented in Figure 16 for embedment ratios of 1 and 3 in case of anchor in medium dense
sand. The normalised additional resistance value for L/D=1 is 1.4 for the displacement
corresponds to peak resistance and remains the same for the displacement of post peak. The
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
normalised additional resistance value for L/D=3 is 0.6 for the displacement corresponds to
peak resistance and the value is 0.25 in the region of residual phase.
Almost similar trend was observed in loose and dense sand and the respective
normalised additional resistance values for L/D=1 are 1.5 and 1.3 respectively. For the
embedment ratio of 3 the normalised additional resistance values at peak and residual phases
are 1.1 and 0.24 in loose sand and 0.5 and 0.24 in dense sand respectively. The observations
presented above indicates that the geocell reinforcement is more effective in loose sand and
lower embedment ratios. However the strength of sand is the main parameter that governs the
uplift resistance of anchor with geocell reinforcement.
The first phase of load-displacement response of the curve is non-dimensionalised as did for
unreinforced condition. The non-dimensionalised pre-peak phases of the load–displacement
response for the model anchor reinforced without and with basal reinforcement for loose
dense, medium-dense, and dense sand beds were similar to those of the planar-reinforced
case except for a change in the values of C and m, which also typifies the rectangular
hyperbolic response.
6.3 Comparison of Response between Reinforced and Unreinforced Beds
The load–displacement behaviour of the model anchor at four configurations of
reinforcement are presented and compared with the anchor without reinforcement embedded
for medium-dense sand at an embedment depth of 2D in Figure 17. The load–displacement
curves depict three-phase behaviour as discussed in section 6.1.1.
The values of the peak pullout load, the displacement corresponded to the peak and the
residual load for unreinforced sand bed, model anchor reinforced with a planar single layer,
planar double layer, and geocell and geocell with basal reinforcement presented in Table 3
for all three densities tested. Table 3 shows that the peak pullout load increased with an
increase in embedment depth, also due to the inclusion of the reinforcement. The
displacement corresponding to the peak pullout load for single- and double-layer planar-
reinforced model anchors were significantly higher than those of the unreinforced sand bed.
However, the displacement corresponding to the peak pullout load decreased for the geocell
without and with basal reinforcement because of stiffer responses due to the inclusion of the
geocell arrangement. This is due to the reduction in the thickness of sand layer above the
geocell reinforcement. Since the thickness of the soil layer involved in the mechanism is less,
less deformation to reach peak strength is required.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
The relation between the breakout factor and the angle of internal friction is presented in
Figure 18, and shows that the factor increased with an increase in the angle of internal
friction of the sand bed for all reinforcement configurations, and for the model anchor
embedded in sand without reinforcement. However the rate of increase decreased with an
increase in the density of sand for the planar reinforced and unreinforced model anchors.
7 INFLUENCE OF AREA OF REINFORCEMENT
The areas of the geonets used for the planar reinforcement of single and double layers were
314 cm2 and 628 cm2, respectively. Those of the ones used to form a geocell of height H=0.5
D was 1210 cm2. The area of geocell material included in sand is close to two times the area
of double layer planar condition. Earlier researchers established that more than two layers of
planar reinforcement are not effectively increasing the uplift resistance, therefore more area
of reinforcement is included in the form of geocell and that increased the resistance.
7.1 Comparison of Peak Pullout Load
To analyse the influence of the area of reinforcement used in the model study, the relation
between the peak pullout loads with respect to reinforcement area ratio (Ar) (= area of
reinforcement/area of model anchor) are presented in Figure 19. The peak pullout load
increased with increase in this ratio. The improvement was higher for the geocell without and
with basal reinforcement than with planar reinforcement for all three densities studied.
The improvement in peak pullout load with respect to the unreinforced model anchor was
investigated by comparing the peak load ratio, PLr (=PU (reinforced)/ PUr (unreinforced)), with
the reinforcement area ratio (Ar), and is presented in Figure 20. The peak load ratios were
1.65, 1.58, and 1.35 for the planar single layer, 1.85, 1.71, and 1.44 for the planar double
layer, 2.88, 2.38, and 2.17 for the geocell, and 3.14, 2.66, and 2.45 for the geocell with basal
reinforcement inclusion in the model anchor at relative densities of 35%, 54%, and 75%,
respectively. The increment in peak load for the planar reinforcement (single and double
layer) in the anchor was between 1.35 and 1.85 times the pullout load of the unreinforced
anchor, but the geocell without and with basal reinforcement inclusion saw an increase in the
pullout load ratio of between 2.17 and 3.14.
From Figure 20, it is apparent that the reinforcement embedded in loose sand bed exhibited a
higher peak load ratio than those in the medium-dense and dense sands. The improvement
was also lower in dense sand than at other relative densities of sand tested in this study. The
increase in peak load ratio for the geocell with the basal reinforced model anchor was
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
between 9.2% and 13.1%, and not appreciable when compared with that in the geocell
without basal reinforced anchor, even though the increase in reinforcement area was 26% of
that of the anchor of the geocell reinforced model.
7.2 Comparison of Residual Behaviour
To understand the effect of reinforcement on model anchor in the residual phase, the ratio of
residual load of model anchor with reinforcement to residual load of anchor without
reinforcement was calculated. The values thus obtained are presented with respect to the
reinforcement ratio in Figure 21. The residual load ratio of reinforced anchors increased
almost linearly with an increase in the reinforcement area ratio, and the configuration of
reinforcement did not exhibit a major effect on the residual capacity of the reinforced anchor.
By comparing the residual behaviour of the reinforcement configurations studied, it is evident
that the medium-dense sand exhibited a higher residual ratio than loose dense and dense sand
beds, whereas the peak load ratio was higher for the loose sand condition. It is evident that
the residual load ratio was significantly higher for all cases of reinforcement (>1.851)
analysed in this research. This behaviour of the reinforced model anchor ensures a safer
system against cyclic loads, such as wind and earthquake loads, than unreinforced conditions,
because of higher resistance at larger displacement than the anchor embedded in unreinforced
sand bed. Moghaddas Tafreshi et al. (2018) confirmed from their study, that anchors
embedded in sand bed with geocell reinforcement reduced the cumulative displacement and
eliminated sudden failure of anchor.
7.3 Comparison of Transformed Hyperbolic Parameters C and m
The non-dimensionalised load–displacement hyperbolic response was analysed for the planar
reinforcement, geocell without and with basal reinforcement, and the anchor without
reinforcement to better understand the behaviour of the model anchor. A similar stress–strain
relationship to that recognised by Kondner (1963) was observed with changes in the
parameters C and m. The variations in C and m for the four reinforcement configurations and
anchors without reinforcement are presented in Figure 22. It shows that the values of m
decreased as the percentage of reinforcement increased, but the value of C increased with an
increase in the percentage of reinforcement. A small reduction in the value of m for the
planar reinforcement with respect to the unreinforced anchor was observed compared with
the geocell without and with basal the reinforced sand bed. The reverse trend for m was
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
observed for C. The reduction in m and an increase in C indicate an increase in the stiffness
of the sand bed due to the inclusion of the reinforcement configuration.
7.4 Relation between Normalised Peak Displacement (Su/L) and Density of Sand Bed
Displacements corresponding to the peak pullout loads (Su), normalised to the embedment
depth (L=200 mm), are plotted against the angle of internal friction (ϕ’) in Figure 23 for the
reinforcement configurations studied. Values with little scatter were observed for the single-
layer planar, geocell, and the geocell with basal-reinforced sand bed and unreinforced anchor.
The said values (Su/L) varied between 1.39% and 3.5% for embedment ratios between 1 and
3 at an angle of internal friction between 33o and 42o. However, for the double layer of the
planar reinforcement, the values of Su/L were distinctly different and greater than in the other
cases because of sustained resistance (ductile behaviour) induced by reinforcement inclusion.
The normalised displacements for two-layer planar reinforcement varied between 4.22% and
8.15% as shown in Figure 23.
The normalised peak displacement decreased with an increase in the angle of internal friction.
The influence of the density of sand on the normalised displacement was marginal for the
unreinforced anchor as well as the one-layer planar, geocell, and geocell with basal for
reinforced model anchors.
7.5 Mathematical Prediction of Pullout Load–Displacement Behaviour
The experimental results of a model anchor without reinforcement for three densities of the
sand bed at embedment ratios (L/D) of 1 to 4 were compared with methods developed by
Meyerhof and Adams (1968), Sutherland et al. (1982), and Ilamparuthi (1991). The capacity
predicted by Meyerhof and Adams’s (1968) model matches with the experimental results
except at L/D=1, and is as shown in Figure 24. In the proposed by Meyerhof and Adams
(1968), the breakout factor can be determined for a given angle of internal friction, and the
embedment ratio and peak pullout load (PU) can then be calculated. When the angle of
friction is known, the peak displacement (Su) can be calculated from the normalised
displacement (Su/L) from Figure 23. The peak pullout load for the reinforced model anchor
(PUr) embedded in sand can be calculated from the empirical relation given below:
( ) ( ) * ( ( ⁄ ))+
9.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
where, PU = peak pullout load for unreinforced sand bed as determined by Meyerhof and
Adams (method), D = diameter of model anchor, L = depth of embedment, ID = relative
density, Ar = reinforcement area ratio, and = angle of internal friction of sand bed. The
results obtained from the theory developed using Equation 9, along with the experimental
results at an embedment ratio of 2 using three reinforcement configurations, are presented in
Figure 25. The theoretical values were also compared with the experimental values for the
geocell-reinforced model anchor for embedment ratios of 1 to 3 at three densities of the sand
bed, and are presented in Figure 26. The PUr predicted varied between -12.5% to 8.3% of the
experimental values obtained in this study. Since the theoretical results were in reasonably
good agreement with the experimental values, the equations proposed by Meyerhof and
Adams (1968) and those proposed in this study (Equation 9) can be adopted to predict the
load–displacement behaviour of the model anchor without and with reinforcement.
The pullout load can be predicted for any given displacement using Equation 8 by
substituting the values of the peak pullout load, displacement corresponding to peak load, and
parameters m and C (from Figure 22). The stiffness of the model anchor can also be
calculated from the pullout load and the corresponding displacement. For example, to
determine the load–displacement relationship for the geocell-reinforced model anchor in
medium-dense sand bed, the peak pullout load (PU) can be determined from Meyerhof and
Adams’s (1968) theory and the peak pullout load for the reinforced bed (PUr) from Equation
9. The peak displacement can then be derived from Figure 23, and m and C can be calculated
for the respective reinforcement configurations from Figure 22.
Comparisons between the observed load–displacement relationships, and those predicted
using the proposed hyperbolic relation (Equation 8) are presented in Figures 27 and 28 for
model anchor with reinforcement inclusion and anchor without reinforcement for various
densities and depths of embedment. The good agreement suggests that the proposed approach
can be applied to generate load–displacement relationships for a reinforced model anchor at
shallow depth in sand. However, further investigation is needed to validate the proposed
method by extending this study to include a variety of reinforcing materials, shapes of
foundations, diameters of geogrid cells, embedment ratios, and methods of installation.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
8 CONCLUSIONS
Based on laboratory experiments (1 g model test) carried out on a model anchor embedded at
three sand densities with and without reinforcement, the following conclusions are drawn
from this study:
The load–displacement relationship of the model anchor with and without reinforcement
shows three-phase behaviour, except for the anchor embedded at a depth of 4 D in loose
dense sand beds, which is similar to the behaviour reported by Ilamparuthi and Dickin
(2001a).
The inclusion of four configurations of reinforcement on the model anchor enhanced the peak
pullout load. The improvement was higher for model anchors reinforced with geocells and
geocells with basal reinforcement than for single- and double-layer planar-reinforced sand
beds.
An increase in the area ratio of the reinforcement increased uplift resistance. Although the
increase in the area ratio of the reinforcement increased uplift resistance, in case of two-layer
planar reinforcement, the increase in capacity was not commensurate with the increase in the
percentage of reinforcement. Additional layers of reinforcement (more than one) exhibit
ductile response due to the strain-hardening effect induced due to confinement of sand
between layers.
The geocell reinforcement increased the uplift resistance both for the displacements of pre
and post peak phases. However, the effect of reinforcement in enhancing the uplift resistance
is relatively significant in loose sand as well as for the embedment ratios less than or equal to
two for the geocell configuration and stiffness adopted in this study. Between the parameters
of stiffness of geocell and strength of sand that are contributing for the uplift resistance of
anchor, the uplift resistance depends more on the strength of sand bed.
The geocell encapsulated sand layer combined with anchor plate increased the stiffness of
anchor geocell composite and exhibited wide slab response against uplifting of anchor. The
geometric shape of uplifted soil mass of anchor is same both in sand bed and sand bed with
geocell encapsulated layer above the anchor except enlarged size of uplifted mass for the
anchor embedded in geocell reinforced bed. The shape is frustum of cone with apex angle
approximately equal to angle of shearing resistance of sand medium in which anchor is
embedded. The enlarged size is attributed to wide slab responses of combined geocell
composite anchor system.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
The increased pullout resistance is not significant by the inclusion of basal reinforcement.
Therefore, geocell inclusion is considered efficient when considering the area of
reinforcement used. Of the reinforcement configurations adopted in this study, geocell
inclusion was the most efficient.
The uplift breakout factor increases with an increase in the depth of embedment as well as the
relative density of the sand medium, both for anchors tested with and without geosynthetic
inclusion. The design proposed by Meyerhof and Adams (1968) predicted the breakout
capacity of the anchor reasonably well for anchors without geosynthetic inclusion. Thus,
Meyerhof and Adams’s (1968) method is applicable to design shallow anchors against uplift
with .
The load–displacement relation derived per Kondner’s (1963) hyperbolic relation reasonably
fitted irrespective of the relative density, embedment ratio, and reinforcement area ratio
adopted in this study.
A unique relation between normalized peak displacement (Su/L) and angle of internal friction
was obtained, which was independent of the embedment ratio and reinforcement ratio used in
this study.
An empirical relation was developed to determine the peak pullout load for reinforced model
anchor. Using the peak pullout load (PUr) from Equation 9 and peak displacement from
Figure 23, the load–displacement curve was regenerated using Kondner’s equation. The
load–displacement relation thus obtained matched well with the pre-peak phase of the
experimental curve of model anchors tested with reinforcement in the sand bed.
The results of the present study can be applied to the prototype provided the area of the
reinforcement and the strength of geogrid should be N2 times the values adopted in the model
study.
The conclusions drawn based on 1 g model tests are valid for anchors embedded at shallow
depth (L/D ≤ 3) and also for the geocell configuration and strength of geocell material
adopted in this study.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Notation
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
 geocell mobilisation factor (dimensionless)
’ angle of internal friction (degrees)
effective unit weight of the sand bed (N/m3)
d pocket size of geocell (m)
e void ratio (dimensionless)
g acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
m transformed hyperbolic parameters (dimensionless)
n number of planar reinforcements (dimensionless)
ID relative density (dimensionless)
A plan area of the model footing (m2)
Ar reinforcement area ratio (m2)
AR area of reinforcement (m2)
C transformed hyperbolic parameters (dimensionless)
CLR cyclic load ratio (dimensionless)
D diameter of model foundation (m)
DR diameter of reinforcement (m)
G shear modulus of sand bed (N/m2)
H geocell height (m)
K stiffness of geocell reinforcement (N/m)
L embedded depth (m)
N scale factor (dimensionless)
Nqf breakout factor (dimensionless)
P resistance of footing during uplift (N)
PLr peak load ratio (dimensionless)
PR additional resistance offered by the geocell (N)
PU peak pullout load (N)
PUR maximum additional resistance offered by the geocell (N)
PUr peak pullout load for the reinforced model footing (N)
R residual load (N)
S displacement of footing during uplift (m)
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
St strength of geocell (N/m)
Su displacement corresponds to peak pullout load (m)
ABBREVIATIONS
SP poorly-graded sand
References
Adams, J.I. & Hayes, D.C. (1967). The uplift capacity of shallow foundations. Ontario Hydro
Research Quarterly, 19(1): 1-13.
Andreadis, A., Harvey, R.C. & Burley, E. (1981). Embedded anchor response to uplift
loading. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 107(1): 59-78.
Avesani Neto, J. O., Bueno, B. S. & Futai, M. M. (2013). A bearing capacity calculation
method for soil reinforced with a geocell. Geosynthetics International, 20(3): 129–
142.
Baker, W.H. & Kondner, R.L. (1966). Pullout load capacity of circular earth anchor buried in
sand. National Academy of Sciences, Highway Research Board, Report No. 108, 1-10
p.
Balla, A. (1961). The resistance to breaking out of mushroom foundations for pylons.
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Paris, France, pp. 569-576.
Bathurst, R. J. & Karpurapu, R. (1993). Large-scale triaxial compression testing of geocell-

reinforced granular soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 16(3): 296–303.
Biswas, A., Murali Krishna, A. & Dash, S. K. (2013). Influence of subgrade strength on the
performance of geocell-reinforced foundation systems. Geosynthetics International,
20(6): 376–388.
Buckingham, E. (1914). On physically similar systems; illustrations of the use of

dimensional equations. Physical Review. 4 (4): 345–376.
Choudhary, A.K. & Dash, S.K. (2013). Uplift behaviour of horizontal plate anchors
embedded in geocell reinforced sand. Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical
Conference, Roorkee, pp. 1-5.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Choudhary, A.K., Pandit, B. & Babu, G.L.S. (2019). Uplift capacity of horizontal anchor
plate in geocell reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 47: 203–216.
Clemence, S.P. & Veesaert, C.J. (1977). Dynamic pullout resistance of anchors in sand.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil-Structure Interaction, Roorkee,
India, pp. 389-397.
Consoli, N.C., Ruver, C.A., Girardello, V., Festugato, L., & Thomé, A. (2012). Effect of
polypropylene fibers on the uplift 29ehaviour of model footings embedded in sand.
Geosynthetics International, 19(1): 79-84.
Das, B.M. & Jin, Y. (1987). Uplift capacity of model group anchors in sand. Das, B.M.,
Editor, Foundations for Transmission Towers. ASCE, New York, pp. 57-71.
Das, B.M. & Seeley, G.R. (1975a). Pullout resistance of horizontal anchors. Proceedings of
Civil Engineering In the Oceans III, ASCE, New York, pp. 434-449.
Das, B.M. & Seeley, G.R. (1975b). Breakout resistance of shallow horizontal anchors.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 101(9): 999-1003.
Dash, S.K. & Bora, M.C. (2013). Improved performance of soft clay foundations using stone
columns and geocell-sand mattress. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 41: 26–35,
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.09.001.
Dash, S. K. & Choudhary, A. K. (2019). Pullout Behavior of Geocell-Reinforced Vertical

Plate Anchors under Lateral Loading. International Journal of Geomechanics, 19(8):
04019082.
Dash, S.K., Krishnaswamy, N. R. & Rajagopal, K. (2001). Bearing capacity of strip footings
supported on geocell-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19: 235-256.
Dickin, E.A. (1988). Uplift behaviour of horizontal anchor plates in sand. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 114(11): 1300-1317.
Dickin, E.A. & Leung, C.F. (1990). Performance of piles with enlarged bases subjected to
uplift forces. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 27(5): 546-556.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Dickin, E.A. & Leung, C.F. (1992). The influence of foundation geometry on the uplift
behaviour of piles with enlarged bases in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 29(3):
498-505.
Fakher, A. & Jones, C.J.F.P. (1996). Discussion: bearing capacity of rectangular footings on
geogrid-reinforced sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 122: 326–327,
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:4(326).
Ghaly, A.M. & Hanna, A.M. (1994). Model investigation of the performance of single
anchors and groups of anchors. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 31(2): 273-284.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A.M. & Hanna, M.S. (1991a). Uplift behaviour of screw anchors in sand.
I: dry sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 117(5): 773-793.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A.M. & Hanna, M.S. (1991b). Uplift behaviour of screw anchors in sand.
II: hydrostatic and flow conditions. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE 117(5): 794-808.
Giampa, J. R., Bradshaw, A.S., Gerkus, H., Gilbert, R.B., Gavin, K.G., & Sivakumar, V.
(2019). The effect of shape on the pull-out capacity of shallow plate anchors in sand.
Géotechnique, 69(4), 355-363.
Giffels, W.C., Graham, R.E. & Mook, J.F. (1960). Concrete cylinder anchors proved for 345-
KV tower line. Electrical World 154: 46-49.
Giroud, J. P. & Noiray, L. (1981). Geotextile-reinforced unpaved road design. Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 107(9): 1233-1254.
Hanna, A.M. & Ghaly, A.M. (1994). Ultimate pullout resistance of groups of vertical
anchors. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 31(5): 673-682.
Hanna, T.H. & Carr, R.W. (1971). The loading behaviour of plate anchors in normally and
overconsolidated sands. Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 589-600.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Hanna, T.H. & Sparks, R. (1973). The behaviour of preloaded anchors in normally
consolidated sands. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, USSR, pp. 137-142.
Hanna, T.H., Sparks, R. & Yilmaz, M. (1972). Anchor behaviour in sand. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE 98(11): 1187-1208.
Hegde, A. & Sitharam, T. G. (2015a). 3-Dimensional numerical modelling of geocell

reinforced sand beds. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 43(2): 171–181.
Hegde, A. M. & Sitharam, T. G. (2015b). Experimental and numerical studies on protection

of buried pipelines and underground utilities using geocells. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 43(5): 372–381.
Hegde, A. & Sitharam, T.G. (2015c). Three-dimensional numerical analysis of geocell-

reinforced soft clay beds by considering the actual geometry of geocell pockets.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 52: 1396–1407, https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-
0387.
Ilamparuthi, K. (1991). Experimental investigation on pullout capacity of plate anchors in

sand. Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras, India,
497 p.
Ilamparuthi, K. & Dickin, E.A. (2001a). The influence of soil reinforcement on the uplift
behaviour of belled piles embedded in sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, (19): 1-
22.
Ilamparuthi K. and Dickin, E.A. (2001b). Predictions of the uplift response of model belled
piles in geogrid cell-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, (19): 89-109.
Ilamparuthi K., Dickin E.A. & Muthukrisnaiah K. (2002). Experimental investigation of the
uplift behaviour of circular plate anchors embedded in sand, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 39: 648-664.
Ilamparuthi, K. & Muthukrishnaiah, K. (1999). Anchors in sand bed: delineation of rupture

surface. Ocean Engineering (29): 1249-1273.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Indraratna, B., Biabani, M. M. & Nimbalkar, S. (2015). Behavior of geocell-reinforced
subballast subjected to cyclic loading in plane-strain condition. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 141(1):
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001199.
Ilamparuthi, K. & Muthukrishnaiah, K. (2001). Breakout capacity of seabed anchors due to

snap loading. Proceedings of International Conference in Ocean Engineering, IIT
Madras, Chennai, India, pp.393 – 400.
Khadilkar, B.S. & Gokhale, B.V. (1972). Study of interference and efficiency of an anchor
pair. Proceedings of the Technical Session, 13th Annual General Meeting, pp. III-1 to
III-13.
Khatun, S. & Chottopadhyay, B.C. (2010). Uplift capacity of plate anchor with
reinforcement. Indian Geotechnical Conference, December, pp. 821-825.
Kondner, R.L. (1963). Hyperbolic stress-strain response: cohesive soils. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE 89(1): 115-143.
Krishnaswamy, N.R. & Parashar, S.P. (1991). Effect of submergence on the uplift resistance
of footings with geosynthetic inclusions. Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical
Conference, Surat, India, pp. 333-336.
Krishnaswamy, N.R. & Parashar, S.P. (1994). Uplift behaviour of plate anchors with
geosynthetics. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 13(2): 67-89.
Majer, P. (1955). Zur Berechnung von Zugfundamenten. Osterreichische Bauzeitgschrift,

10(5): 85-90 (in German).
Mors, H. (1959). The behaviour of mast foundations subject to tensile forces. Bautechnik,
(10): 367-378
Meyerhof, G.G. & Adams, J.I. (1968). The ultimate uplift capacity of foundations. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 5(4): 225-244.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N., Khalaj, O. & Dawson, A. R. (2013). Pilot-scale load tests of a
combined multi-layered geocell and rubber-reinforced foundation. Geosynthetics
International, 20(3): 143–161.
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N., Rahimi, M., Dawson, A. & Leshchinsky, B. (2018). Cyclic and
post-cycling anchor response in geocell-reinforced sand. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 56(11): 1700-1718, https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0559.
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N., Sharifi, P. & Dawson, A. R. (2016). Performance of circular

footings on sand by use of multiple-geocell or-planar geotextile reinforcing layers.
Soils and Foundations, 56(6): 984–997.
Murray, E.J. & Geddes, J.D. (1987). Uplift behaviour of plates in sand. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 113(3): 202-215.
Niroumand, H., Kassim, K.A. & Nazir, R. (2013). The influence of soil reinforcement on the
uplift response of symmetrical anchor plate embedded in sand. Measurement, 46:
2608-2629
Ovesen, N.K. (1981). Centrifuge tests of the uplift capacity of anchors. Proceedings of the
10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Stockholm, pp. 717-722.
Petereit, R.A. (1987). The static and cyclic pullout behavior of plate anchors in fine saturated
sand. Ph.D. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, pp. 98-101.
Radhakrishna, H.S. (1976). Helix anchor tests in sand. Essa, T.S., Editor, Ontario Hydro
Research Division, Research Report 76-130-K, pp. 1-33.
Rahimi, M., Moghaddas Tafreshi, S.N., Leshchinsky, B. & Dawson, A.R. (2018a).
Experimental and numerical investigation of the uplift capacity of plate anchors in
geocell-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 46(6): 801–816.
Rahimi, M., Leshchinsky, B. & Moghaddas Tafreshi, S.N. (2018b). Assessing the ultimate
uplift capacity of plate anchors in geocell-reinforced sand. Geosynthetics
International, 25(6): 612–629, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.18.00029.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Ravichandran, P. T. (2008). Investigations on Uplift Response of Anchors in Sand with and
without Reinforcement, PhD thesis, Anna University, India.
Ravichandran, P.T. & Ilamparuthi, K. (2008). Uplift behaviour of strip anchor in sand and
reinforced sand beds. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 38(2): 156-170.
Ravichandran P.T., Ilamparuthi K. & Toufeeq M.M. (2008), Investigation on uplift behaviour
of plate anchor in reinforced sand bed. Electronical Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, (13): 1-8
Rowe, R.K. & Davis, E.H. (1982). The behaviour of anchor plates in sand. Geotechnique
32(1): 25-41.
Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T.G. & Dash, S.K. (2009). Bearing capacity of circular footing on
geocell sand mattress overlying clay bed with void. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
27(2): 89–98, doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.09.005.
Sitharam, T. G. & Sireesh, S. (2005). Behaviour of embedded footings supported on geogrid-

cell reinforced foundation beds. Geotechnical testing Journal, ASTM, 28: 452- 463.
Sivaraman, S., Ilamparuthi, K., & Kishor Kumar, V. (2014). Experimental investigations on
behaviour of single and multiple anchors in cohesionless soil. Proceedings of the First
Annual Conference on Innovations and Developments in Civil Engineering, ACIDIC-
2014 NITK, Surathkal, India.
Song, F., Liu, H., Chai, H. & Chen, J. (2017). Stability analysis of geocell-reinforced
retaining walls. Geosynthetics International, 24(5): 442–450.
Song, F., Liu, H., Ma, L. & Hu, H. (2018). Numerical analysis of geocell-reinforced retaining
wall failure modes. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 46(3): 284–296.
Song, F., Xie, Y. L., Yang, Y. F. & Yang, X. H. (2014). Analysis of failure of flexible
geocell-reinforced retaining walls in the centrifuge. Geosynthetics International,
21(6): 342–351.
Sutherland, H.B. (1988). Uplift resistance of soils. Géotechnique, 38(4): 493–516.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Sutherland, H.B., Finlay, T.W. & Fadl, M.O. (1982). Uplift capacity of embedded anchors in
sand. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Behaviour of Offshore
Structures, Cambridge, MA, pp. 451-463.
Tagaya, K., Scott, R.F. & Aboshi, H. (1988). Pullout resistance of buried anchor in sand.
Soils and Foundations 28(3): 114-130.
Tagaya, K., Tanaka, A. & Aboshi, H. (1983). Application of finite element method to pullout
resistance of buried anchor. Soils and Foundations 23(3): 91-104.
Tanyu, B. F., Aydilek, A. H., Lau, A. W., Edil, T. B. & Benson, C. H. (2013). Laboratory
evaluation of geocell-reinforced gravel subbase over poor subgrades. Geosynthetics
Tavakoli Mehrjardi, G. H., Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N. & Dawson, A. R. (2013). Pipe

response in a geocell-reinforced trench and compaction considerations. Geosynthetics
Tavakoli Mehrjardi, G. H. & Motarjemi, F. (2018). Interfacial properties of geocell-

reinforced granular soils. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 46(4): 384–395.
Trung Ngo, N., Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C. & Biabani, M. M. (2016). Experimental
and discrete element modeling of geocell-stabilized subballast subjected to cyclic
loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(4).
https://doi.org/10.1016/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001431.
Turner, E. A. (1962). Uplift Resistance of Transmission Tower Footings. Journal of the

Power Division, ASCE, (83)02: 17-33.
Viswanadham, B.V.S. & König, D. (2004). Studies on scaling and instrumentation of a

geogrid. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 22: 307–328, doi:10.1016/S0266-
1144(03)00045-1.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Table 1. Scale factors for different parameters of model
Description Scale Prototype Prototype size Model size

factor to model
scale
Diameter (D) N 10 1m 0.1 m
Diameter of reinforcement (DR) N 10 2m 0.2 m
Height of reinforcement (H) N 10 0.5 m 0.05 m
Pocket size of geocell (d) N 10 0.5 m 0.05 m
Area of reinforcement (AR) N2 100 12.1 m2 0.121 m2
Strength of reinforcement (St) N2 100 770 kN/m 7.70 kN/m
Table 2. Properties of sand beds
Angle of internal
Dry unit weight Void Relative density,
friction, Sand packing
(kN/m3) ratio, e ID (%)
(deg.)
16.64 0.56 75 42 Dense
15.66 0.66 54 37 Medium-dense
14.87 0.75 35 33 Loose
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Table 3. Results of tests on model anchor with and without reinforcement
o o o
Model anchor L/ Su Su Su
PU (or) R PU (or) R PU (or) R
configuration D (mm (mm (mm
PUr (N) (N) PUr (N) (N) PUr (N) (N)
) ) )
21. 26. 25.
Unreinforced 1 40.3 3.1 56.6 1.2 69.0 0.9
8 8 5
55. 56. 79.
2 90.2 5.5 131.5 4.6 169.7 3.8
2 6 2
17 24 30
3 224.8 11.2 384.6 8.9 486.8 6.6
5.8 6.7 4.2
35 59 70
4 371.9 18.6 684.4 14.6 852.6 11.7
0.1 1.3 4.6
10 12 14
Planar n=1 2 148.5 7.0 207.9 4.8 229.1 2. 8
7.8 7.3 6.6
11 13 15
Planar n=2 2 166.9 16.3 224.8 10.1 244.6 8.4
8.4 4.9 4.6
53. 64. 70.
Geocell 1 102 2.5 124.5 2.4 141 2.3
2 1 6
12 14 15
2 259.5 4.6 313.5 4.0 367.5 3.7
1.5 5.3 5.3
23 23 31
3 429 6.7 658.3 6.1 753 5.8
4.8 2.7 0.3
Geocell with 13 15 16
2 283.5 4.5 349.5 4.0 415.5 3.7
basal 3.9 5.8 2.3
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Table 4. Maximum additional resistance (PUR) and normalised additional resistance (PUR/PU)
for different depth of embedment
Embedment Loose sand (ID = 35%) Medium dense sand (ID Dense sand (ID = 75%)
Depth (L/D) = 54%)
PUR (N) PUR /PU PUR (N) PUR /PU PUR (N) PUR /PU
1 61.8 1.54 70.8 1.25 79.5 1.15
2 172.2 1.91 190 1.44 203.1 1.20
3 227.7 1.01 248.2 0.65 261.8 0.54
Figure captions
Figure 1 3D View of geocell used in experiments
Figure 2 Plan view of geocell
Figure 3 Experimental arrangement for pullout tests
Figure 4 Model anchor (a) Model circular anchor, (b) Model anchor with single-layer planar
reinforcement. (c) Model anchor with double-layer planar reinforcement. (d) Model
anchor with geocell reinforcement. (e) Model anchor with geocell+basal
reinforcement.
Figure 5 Comparison of load–displacement response of anchor embedded in medium-dense

sand for various embedment ratios.
Figure 6 Comparison of peak pullout load of anchor for various embedment ratios.
Figure 7 Results of breakout factor of anchor without reinforcement for various embedment
ratios.
Figure 8 Hyperbolic representation of the pullout load–displacement relationship for all tests
in unreinforced sand bed.
Figure 9 Transformed hyperbolic representation of pullout load–displacement relationship for

all tests in unreinforced sand bed.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Figure 10 Comparison of pullout responses of anchor in planar reinforced and unreinforced
medium-dense sand bed.
Figure 11 Hyperbolic representation of pullout load–displacement relationship for tests of the

anchor using planar reinforcement.
Figure 12 Transformed hyperbolic representation of pullout load–displacement relationship

for tests of the anchor using planar reinforcement.
Figure 13 Comparison of pullout responses of anchor in geocell without and with basal
reinforcement and unreinforced medium-dense sand bed.
Figure 14 Observed rupture surface during pullout of anchor in medium dense sand bed a)
anchor without reinforcement and b) anchor with geocell reinforcement.
Figure 15 Relationship between P and PR with displacement for anchor with geocell
reinforcement (a) Loose & L/D=1, (b) Dense & L/D=1, (c) Loose & L/D=2, (d)
Dense & L/D=2, (e) Loose & L/D=3 and (f) Dense & L/D=3.
Figure 16 Relation between normalised additional reistance (PR/P) and displacement in

medium dense sand with L/D=2.
Figure 17 Effect of configuration of reinforcement on pullout behaviour of anchor in

reinforced medium-dense sand bed.
Figure 18 Relationship between breakout factor and angle of internal friction for anchor with
and without reinforcement.
Figure 19 Comparison of peak pullout load vs. configuration of reinforcement for L=2D.
Figure 20 Comparison of peak load ratio vs. reinforcement area ratio.
Figure 21 Comparison of residual load ratio vs. reinforcement area ratio.
Figure 22 Comparison of m and C for anchor without and with reinforcement.
Figure 23 Relationship between (Su/L) and angle of internal friction for anchor with and
without reinforcement.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
Figure 24 Comparison of theoretical prediction (Meyerhof and Adams 1968) with
experimental results for anchor without reinforcement.
Figure 25 Comparison of theoretical prediction with experimental results for anchor with
reinforcement.
Figure 26 Comparison of theoretical prediction with experimental results for anchor with
geocell reinforcement.
Figure 27 Typical comparisons between experimental pullout load–displacement

relationships and hyperbolic approximations based on Equation 8.
Figure 28 Typical comparisons between experimental pullout load–displacement

relationships and hyperbolic approximations for L/D=1 and 3 based on Equation 8.
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013
10.1680/jgein.20.00013

Performance of Anchor in Sand With Different Forms of Geosynthetic Reinforcement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance of Anchor in Sand With Different Forms of Geosynthetic Reinforcement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted manuscript doi:

of the sand bed.

Bathurst, R. J. & Karpurapu, R. (1993). Large-scale triaxial compression testing of geocell-

Buckingham, E. (1914). On physically similar systems; illustrations of the use of

Dash, S. K. & Choudhary, A. K. (2019). Pullout Behavior of Geocell-Reinforced Vertical

Giroud, J. P. & Noiray, L. (1981). Geotextile-reinforced unpaved road design. Journal of

Hegde, A. & Sitharam, T. G. (2015a). 3-Dimensional numerical modelling of geocell

Hegde, A. M. & Sitharam, T. G. (2015b). Experimental and numerical studies on protection

Hegde, A. & Sitharam, T.G. (2015c). Three-dimensional numerical analysis of geocell-

Ilamparuthi, K. (1991). Experimental investigation on pullout capacity of plate anchors in

Ilamparuthi, K. & Muthukrishnaiah, K. (1999). Anchors in sand bed: delineation of rupture

Ilamparuthi, K. & Muthukrishnaiah, K. (2001). Breakout capacity of seabed anchors due to

Majer, P. (1955). Zur Berechnung von Zugfundamenten. Osterreichische Bauzeitgschrift,

Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N., Sharifi, P. & Dawson, A. R. (2016). Performance of circular

Sitharam, T. G. & Sireesh, S. (2005). Behaviour of embedded footings supported on geogrid-

Sutherland, H.B. (1988). Uplift resistance of soils. Géotechnique, 38(4): 493–516.

Tavakoli Mehrjardi, G. H., Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N. & Dawson, A. R. (2013). Pipe

Tavakoli Mehrjardi, G. H. & Motarjemi, F. (2018). Interfacial properties of geocell-

Turner, E. A. (1962). Uplift Resistance of Transmission Tower Footings. Journal of the

Viswanadham, B.V.S. & König, D. (2004). Studies on scaling and instrumentation of a

Description Scale Prototype Prototype size Model size

Table 2. Properties of sand beds

for different depth of embedment

Figure 1 3D View of geocell used in experiments

Figure 2 Plan view of geocell

Figure 3 Experimental arrangement for pullout tests

Figure 5 Comparison of load–displacement response of anchor embedded in medium-dense

Figure 9 Transformed hyperbolic representation of pullout load–displacement relationship for

Figure 11 Hyperbolic representation of pullout load–displacement relationship for tests of the

Figure 12 Transformed hyperbolic representation of pullout load–displacement relationship

Figure 16 Relation between normalised additional reistance (PR/P) and displacement in

Figure 17 Effect of configuration of reinforcement on pullout behaviour of anchor in

Figure 20 Comparison of peak load ratio vs. reinforcement area ratio.

Figure 21 Comparison of residual load ratio vs. reinforcement area ratio.

Figure 22 Comparison of m and C for anchor without and with reinforcement.

Figure 27 Typical comparisons between experimental pullout load–displacement

Figure 28 Typical comparisons between experimental pullout load–displacement

You might also like