Uplift capacity of single belled anchor in cohesionless foundation

media
Tanaya Deb1 & Sujit Kumar Pal2
Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Agartala, Agartala, Tripura, India

ABSTRACT
This experimental investigation describes the variation in uplift capacity of single belled anchors due to embedment
ratios of 3, 4 and 5, diameter ratios of 0.28, 0.33, 0.38 and 0.46, and bell angles of 45, 54, 63 and 72°. The reason of
variation in uplift behaviour is explained by failure diagrams. The uplift capacities show consistently increasing trend
due to higher embedment ratios, lesser diameter ratios and are found to be effective to gain uplift capacities for bell
angles of 45, 54 and 63° compared to 72° belled anchors.

1 INTRODUCTION

Belled anchors are generally favoured by geotechnical
engineers when foundations have to provide extensive
load bearing capacity and tension anchorage for the
uplift resistance of foundation system. The anchors can
be characterized as shallow and deep (Saran et al.
1986 and Tagaya et al. 1988). Ghaly et al. (1991) said
that the anchors can also be categorised as shallow,
deep and transition on the basis of failure response
upto sand surface.
Anchor pile is a convenient and conventional
method of foundation construction for works under
water table and ocean structures; underground
pumping station, oil storage tanks, pipe lines under sea-
water, buildings having several underground floors, built
in coastal areas are the examples of such structures.
Offshore structures (dolphins, jetty and wharf
structures) are continuously subjected to thrust of wind,
storm and hurricanes produce cyclic wave, fluctuation in
water level, thrust and pull of the berthing ships, and
sometimes thrust of thick sheets of moving ice carried
by tide. More recently, anchors are being used to
provide a simple and economical mooring system for
offshore floating oil and gas amenities. Rao et al. (2006)
sketched the mooring systems and presented in Figure
1.
In case of on-land structures, beneath structures the
tensile forces usually temporary and are almost always
caused by the moment due to wind. For radar tower,
television tower, power pole, road-side sign posts and
outdoor sign pools imbalance horizontal forces mainly
due to severe wind velocity and resultant uplift load is
more than their self weight. The resultant pullout force
in the legs of power transmission tower was presented
by Davie (1973) due to wind load as shown in Figure 2.
Due to high wind velocity, trembling in cables, there is
severe vibration on the tower structure and if a cable
would break, there are large unbalanced forces
accounted. Both sets of forces are responsible for
moment generation. Silos, overhead water tank and tall
chimneys are not only concerned about large
compressive load transmission in sub-soil profile, but
also governed by uplift or overturning load and moment
considerations. Rao et al. (2007) worked on the
granular pile anchor to resist uplift due to swelling of
expansive clay bed.

Figure1. Mooring system (after, Rao et

al.2006) Figure 2. Tensile forces on footings (after, Davie
1973)

1
 and to hold dial gauges gently. Here, to study the failure
diagram in both the sides of panels (in same scale as
The uplift capacity of belled anchor had been the models are mentioned already) are fabricated with 1
studied by Dickin and Leung (1990, 1992), Pal (1992), mm thick steel plates. These are denoted as 2D panels.
Ghosh and Bera (2010), Bera (2014), Bera and
Banerjee (2013), and Nazir et al. (2014). Uplift capacity Table 1. Physical and engineering properties of sand
of straight single pile and pile group had been studied sample
by Dash and Pise (2003), Deshmukh et al. (2010), and
Gaaver (2013). Uplift resistance of screw anchors were Physical and engineering properties Test results
studied by Ghaly et al. (1991), and Mittal and Medium sand (%) 93.50
Mukherjee (2013). Kumar and Sahoo (2011) used Fine sand (%) 6.50
group of coaxial horizontal anchors with a common Silt and clay (%) 1.05
vertical axis in cohesive soil. Effective grain size, D10, (mm) 0.70
Average grain size, D50, (mm) 0.93
The present experimental study aims to explore the Coefficient of curvature, Cc 0.91
variation in uplift behaviours of single belled anchors in Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 1.00
sand with several embedment ratios and anchor
Name of soil (USCS) SP
characteristics. The variation in uplift response is
Specific gravity 2.67
justified with the support of failure diagrams of those
Minimum void ratio 0.63
models.
Maximum void ratio 0.88
2 MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY Void ratio at placement density 0.71
Minimum dry density (kN/m3) 14.20
2.1 Materials Maximum dry density(kN/m3) 16.50
Placement dry density(kN/m3) 15.60
In the present study, locally collected sand is used as Relative density Dr, (%) 64.38
foundation media in completely dry condition for all Undrained cohesion, c (kN/m2) 0.00
experiments. Figure 3 shows gradation of sand sample. Soil internal friction angle, ϕ (°) 33.50
The physical and engineering properties are obtained in Coefficient of hydraulic conductivity, k 1.83×10-4
accordance with ASTM standards and presented in (m/sec)
Table 1. Modulus of elasticity, Es (kPa) 31,600
Dilatancy angle, ψ, (°) 3.5

Table 2. The geometry, identifications and designations

of models

α Ds/Db Model L/Db Model

(°) identificatio designations
ns
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
3 M:45-0.28-3
45 0.46 M:45-0.46 4 M:45-0.28-4
5 M:45-0.28-5
3 M:45-0.33-3
45 0.38 M:45-0.38 4 M:45-0.33-4
5 M:45-0.33-5
3 M:45-0.38-3
45 0.33 M:45-0.33 4 M:45-0.38-4
5 M:45-0.38-5
3 M:45-0.46-3
45 0.28 M:45-0.28 4 M:45-0.46-4
5 M:45-0.46-5
3 M:54-0.28-3
Figure 3. Gradation of sand sample 54 0.46 M:54-0.46 4 M:54-0.28-4
5 M:54-0.28-5
2.2 Models 3 M:54-0.33-3
54 0.38 M:54-0.38 4 M:54-0.33-4
Belled anchor is generally identified by its bell angle, 5 M:54-0.33-5
shaft diameter and bell diameter, Table 2 represents 3 M:54-0.38-3
the detailing of all the models. For all the models shaft 54 0.33 M:54-0.33 4 M:54-0.38-4
diameter is kept constant at 26 mm and variable bell 5 M:54-0.38-5
diameter are used as 92, 80, 68 and 56 mm, and these 3 M:54-0.46-3
are having a bell angle of 45°, 54°, 63° and 72°. A 54 0.28 M:54-0.28 4 M:54-0.46-4
hollow cylindrical arrangement and a couple of 5 M:54-0.46-5
horizontally projected steel strips at 180° apart are 3 M:63-0.28-3
welded at the top of all models to attach proving ring

2
63 0.46 M:63-0.46 4 M:63-0.28-4 reaction beam of steel channel is welded with the
5 M:63-0.28-5 vertical frames. A pulling shaft, (running as screw jack)
3 M:63-0.33-3 is a mechanical tool working on the principle of nut and
63 0.38 M:63-0.38 4 M:63-0.33-4 screw motion. At the bottom of pulling shaft the model is
5 M:63-0.33-5 connected via proving ring. Upward movement of the
3 M:63-0.38-3 shaft is manually controlled by rotating circular wheel
63 0.33 M:63-0.33 4 M:63-0.38-4 fixed with nut arrangement (resting over the reaction
beam), and nut and screw is functioning on the ball-
5 M:63-0.38-5
bearing system. Prior to each test, a compacted sand
3 M:63-0.46-3
layer of 100 mm thick is prepared inside the model tank
63 0.28 M:63-0.28 4 M:63-0.46-4
to place the model. The sand filling is done up to
5 M:63-0.46-5 desired embedment depth from the level of anchor
3 M:72-0.28-3 base. Tension proving ring (1.0 kN capacity) and a
72 0.46 M:72-0.46 4 M:72-0.28-4 couple of dial gauges (0.01 mm accuracy) are used to
5 M:72-0.28-5 measure tensile loads and corresponding vertical
3 M:72-0.33-3 displacements respectively. The dial gauges are
72 0.38 M:72-0.38 4 M:72-0.33-4 properly fixed with magnetic bases and the magnetic
5 M:72-0.33-5 bases are placed on a couple of steel bar placed over
3 M:72-0.38-3 the model tank.
72 0.33 M:72-0.33 4 M:72-0.38-4
5 M:72-0.38-5 3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
3 M:72-0.46-3
72 0.28 M:72-0.28 4 M:72-0.46-4 In this test series, the variable parameters as
5 M:72-0.46-5 considered, are mentioned below:
• Embedment ratios (L/Db) of models: 3, 4 and 5,
2.3 Testing Tank • Diameter ratios (Ds/Db) of models: 0.46, 0.38, 0.33 and
0.28; and
The size of the testing tank is 600 mm (L) × 600 mm • Bell angles (α) of models: 45, 54, 63 and 72°.
(W) × 700 mm (H). The frame is made of steel and the
bottom of the tank is enclosed by a steel plate. Vertical In total, 48 (= 3×4×4) numbers of tests are
steel stiffeners are welded to three sides of the frame. performed to investigate uplift behaviour. 48 numbers of
The box is enclosed by a plaxi-glass sheet of 12 mm tests are conducted to show the variation in failure
thick in four sides. To study failure diagram, stiffeners diagrams with 2D panels.
are not provided in front side to have a clear view from .
outside. The size of the tank is big enough to be free
from boundary effects.

2.4 Sand Bed Preparation for Models and Panels

In this present study, the sand is used at placement

density of 15.60 kN/m3, and these are achieved by
raining technique (Ghosh and Bera 2010, Bera 2014,
Bera and Banerjee 2013, Dickin and Leung 1990, and
Pal1992). For reproducing sand deposit of uniform
density, two factors play a vital role, i.e., the height of
free fall and intensity of deposition, as suggested by
Bouazza and Finlay (1990). Here height of free fall is
fixed by calibration and finalised as 70 cm in both the
densities. Here, the rainfall procedure is maintained
manually by soil tray. The local density of sand within
the model tank is checked by several wooden cubes of
80 cc by placing them in different levels of the tank and
variation has been found ±1% only.

To study the failure diagram in both sides of 2D

panels homogeneous sand bed is prepared by placing
successive layers of dyed sand (i.e., red colour), non- .
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of experimental set-up
dyed sand (i.e., natural colour) and both the layers
(after, Deb and Pal 2017)
belonging the same density of 15.60 kN/m3.

2.5 Experimental Set-up and Test Procedure
Figure 4 shows the schematic diagram of experimental
set-up consisting of loading frame, anchor, model tank,
proving ring, dial gauges and other accessories. The
base of loading frame is bolted with the ground for
stability and it is fabricated from steel channels. A
4 OBSERVATIONS ON UPLIFT CAPACITY VS.
DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOUR
The typical net uplift capacity vs. anchor displacement
behaviour is presented in Figure 5 (a and b) for
models M:54-0.46 and M:72-0.38 respectively, both at
L/Db of 3, 4 and 5. In general, the curves pass through

3
three phases. Initially, in the curves, linear part is designation M:72-0.46-3 represents a model having α
presenting true elastic response and thereafter linear value of 72°, Ds/Db of 0.46 and L/Db of 3. The panels
part trying to be approximately curvilinear shape, and are similarly designated as models and to make
finally, the elasto-plastic response is seen with the truly understand the panel “2D” is used.
curvilinear shape at the collapsed stage. The nature of
curves is similar as explained by Rowe and Davis
(1982) in the sand for plate anchors. The gross ultimate
uplift capacity (Qg) and corresponding failure
displacement (Df) is pointed out, when uplift capacity is
attained peak value in proving ring and displacement
shows in dial gauge under that peak value. Net ultimate
uplift capacity (Qu) is always reported as self-weight
subtracted from the Qg.
The failure diagram obtained in both the sides of
panels are presented in Figure 6 (a and b). In the plots
of failure diagram (Figures 8, 10 and 12) “FS” indicates
failure surface around the 2D panel. The failure points
are plotted with the help of polynomial curves.

Figure 6. Failure surfaces in both sides of panels- (a)

2D:45-0.33-4 and (b) 2D:54-0.33-5 (after, Deb and
Pal 2018)

5 FAILURE SURFACE MECHANISM AND

OBSERVATIONS

Figure 5. Net uplift capacity vs. anchor displacement In case of 2D panels, it is observed from the present
behaviour for (a) M:54-0.46 and (b) M:72-0.38 study that at primary stage of pulling with the
5 MODEL DESIGNATIONS
application of tensile load, the sand layers around bell
base tend to move along panel; resulting formation of
In Table 2 (column v) the detail designations of models
small cavity or gap underneath the anchor base, and
are presented. Each model is represented by a coding
this may be the stage of relief of stress beneath the
system consisting of four parts. The first, second, third
anchor base and simultaneous increase of compression
and fourth part represents the model, bell angle,
in the sand located above the ceiling of belled out
diameter ratio and embedment ratio respectively. For
portion. This phenomenon described by Saeedy (1987)
example, a model having α value of 54°, Ds/Db of 0.33
that with initial uplift, sand above anchor base
and L/Db of 5 is designated as M:54-0.33-5. The

4
compressed under the action of anchor and at that
stage compressibility was dependent on initial state of
stress of sand. In this present study, the dyed sand
layers near the base are gradually inclined in respect of
horizontal with initial upward movement of anchor. With
further pulling upto certain height from the base the
inclination of sand layers is steeper in respect of
horizontal plane; thereafter inclination in layers become
gradually milder as migrate towards top surface of sand
layer. Within the compressed zone for locking up of
sands, the factors responsible are dialatancy of sand
(Rowe and Davis 1982), and higher interlocking among
the sand particles within failure zone than rolling and
sliding (Ilamparuthi and Muthukrisnaiah 1999).
Continuous pulling results in expansion of cavity
and migration of non-linear slip surface with higher
radial spreading progressively towards sand surface
until shear stress level in the sand around anchor base
reaches shear strength.
At the verge of failure, tension cracks are
produced in sand around the base and a plastic flow of
disturbed sand progress downward to fill the void. It is
noticed that when the displaced sand around the base
start to flow downward to fill the cavity, simultaneously
the developing failure surface reaches top surface of Figure 7. Net ultimate uplift capacity vs. embedment
sand layer. It has been observed from the present study ratio relation for models at α = 63°, Ds/Db = 0.28,
that the failure wedge once generated remains 0.33, 0.38 and 0.46 each at L/Db = 3, 4 and 5
unaltered even after further pulling and the domain
outside of failure surface remains in rest condition. The It is obvious that progressively more overburden
pulling is continued after the failure indicated by the pressure would act on anchor base at gradually higher
proving ring till the sand particles around the base of embedment ratios due to larger sand mass. In Figure 8,
panel move downward to fill the cavity. from the failure diagram it is noticed that larger volume
of sand is uplifted at higher embedment ratios. Hence,
6 DISCUSSIONS there is more amount of breakout sand zone, the higher
weight of sand inside the wedges as well as mobilised
Based on 48 numbers the experimental results shear on surfaces of wedges; this phenomenon
and 48 numbers of observations on failure surfaces, the explains the reason of higher uplift capacity (Qu) of
variations in the response of uplift behaviour of belled belled anchors at embedment ratios which is
anchors in cohesionless foundation media due to independent of diameter ratios and bell angles.
different embedment ratios, diameter ratios and bell
angles have been discussed in this section.

6.1 Net Ultimate Uplift Capacity (QU) of Belled

Anchors Influenced by Embedment Ratio (L/Db)

The plots of net ultimate uplift capacity (Qu) of belled

anchors vs. embedment ratio (L/Db) illustrated in Figure
7 for models M:63-0.28, M:63-0.33, M:63-0.38 and
M:63-0.46, each at L/Db of 3, 4 and 5. It reveals that
with the increase in the value of L/Db, for same anchor,
the values of Qu gradually moves upward irrespective of
Ds/Db and α. In M:54-0.33, the values of Qu raise from
75.65 to 149.65 N and 149.65 to 224.19 N, as L/Db
increases from 3 to 4 and 4 to 5 respectively. The
similar trend was observed in helical screw anchors
(Mittal and Mukherjee 2013), in plate anchors (Vanitha
et al. 2007, and Ilamparuthi and Dickin 2001), in belled
anchors (Dickin and Leung 1990, Pal 1992, Ghosh and
Bera 2010, Bera 2014, and Nazir et al. 2014) in sand
respectively.

Figure 8. Failure diagram besides panels having at

α = 45°, Ts/Tb = 0.28 at L/Tb = 3, 4 and 5.

5
 6.2 Net Ultimate Uplift Capacity (Qu) of Belled
Anchor Piles Influenced by Diameter Ratio
(Ds/Db)
The plots of the net ultimate uplift capacity of belled
anchors vs. diameter ratio are presented in Figure 9 for
models of M:54-0.46, M:54-0.38, M:54-0.33 and M:54-
0.28, at L/Db of 3, 4 and 5. In models having α of 72° at
L/Db of 5, due to a decrease in the value of Ds/Db from
0.28 to 0.33, 0.33 to 0.38 and 0.38 to 0.46, Qu
decreased from 95.14 to 60.86 N, 60.86 to 36.93 N and
36.93 to 19.65 N respectively. The trend of these values
of Qu were same as reported by Dickin and Leung
(1990), Pal (1992), Nazir et al. (2014), and Ilamparuthi
and Dickin (2001) for belled anchors installed in dry
sand.
Figure 9. Net ultimate uplift capacity vs. diameter
ratio relation for models at α = 54°, Ds/Db = 0.28,
0.33, 0.38 and 0.46 each at L/Db = 3, 4 and 5
Figure 10. Failure diagram besides panels having α =
72°, Ts/Tb = 0.46, 0.38, 0.33 and 0.28 at L/Tb = 4
In Figure 10, from the failure diagrams, it is
observed that with the increase in the value of Ts/Tb, at
constant L/Tb and α, the volume of breakout sand zone
gradually decreases. From this figure, it is also revealed
that the weight of sand column on the ceiling of the
belled out portion is gradually lesser in FS:54-0.33-3
than FS:54-0.28-3, in FS:54-0.38-3 than FS:54-0.33-3
and in FS:54-0.46-3 than FS:54-0.38-3. Hence,
combinations of gradually lesser weight of wedges, as
well as mobilized shear, offer lesser uplift capacity.
6.3 Net Ultimate Uplift (Qu) Capacity of Belled Anchor
Piles Influenced by Bell Angle (α)
The plots of net ultimate uplift capacity of belled
anchors vs. bell angle is presented in Figure 11 for
models having Ds/Db of 0.28, α of 45°, 54°, 63° and 72°,
and each model is installed at L/Db of 3, 4 and 5. The
Qu values are reduced from 7 to 10% when the bell
angle is increased from 45 to 63°. Dickin and Leung
(1992), and Nazir et al. (2014) noticed the rate of
reduction in uplift capacity of belled anchor due to
change in bell angle from 45 to 60° and 22 to 63°
respectively. In the present study, as α increased from
63 to 72°, in most of the cases, uplift capacities
decreased within the range of 17 to 22 %. Dickin and
Leung (1992) found that there was a rapid decrease in
uplift capacity beyond bell angle of 62°.
In Figure 12, from the failure diagrams it has been
found that FS:45-0.33-3, FS:54-0.33-3 and FS:63-0.33-
3 are near each other; but FS:72-0.33-3 is
comparatively far from FS:45-0.33-3 and close to
anchor. This figure also indicates that volume of
wedges are slightly reducing for anchors having the α
within the range of 45 to 63°, and for anchors
possessing α of 72° the volume of the wedge is much
lesser. Hence, at a constant value of L/Tb and Ts/Tb,
the Qu values are slightly lesser in anchors having α of
63° than anchors possessing α of 45° and Qu values
are much lesser for anchors having α of 72° than
anchors possessing α of 45°.
Figure 11. Net ultimate uplift capacity vs. bell angle
relation for models at Ds/Db = 0.38, α = 45°, 54°,
63° and 72° each at L/Tb = 3, 4 and 5
6

Figure 12 Failure diagram besides panels having
L/Tb = 3, Ts/Tb = 0.33 and α = 45°, 54°, 63° and 72°
7 CONCLUDING REMARKS
On the basis of the results, observations and
discussions carried out in this study, the following
significant conclusion may be listed below:
• For higher embedment ratio, higher uplift capacity
is obtained irrespective of diameter ratio and bell angle.
With higher embedment ratios larger breakout wedges
are formed due to failure.
• With the increase in diameter ratio, a gradual
decreasing tendency in uplift capacity is found
regardless embedment ratio and bell angle. With higher
diameter ratios smaller wedges are formed due to
failure.
• With a gradual steeper bell angle (from 45 to 63°),
for specific diameter ratio and embedment ratio, net
ultimate uplift capacities become gradually lesser.
When belled angle increased from 63 to 72°, uplift
capacities decreased significantly. The breakout
wedges formed surrounding 63° belled anchors are
slightly lesser than those anchors formed around 45°
belled anchors, but the wedges formed surrounding 72°
anchors are considerably lesser than those anchors
formed around 45° belled anchors.
• The belled anchors are found to be effective to gain
uplift capacities when bell angles are 45, 54 and 63° in
comparison to 72°.
REFERENCES
Bera, A. K. 2014. Parametric study on uplift capacity of
anchor with tie in sand, Korean Society of Civil
Engineers, Springer, 18(4):1028-1035.
Bera, A. K., and Banerjee, U. 2013. Uplift capacity of
model bell shaped anchor embedded in sand,
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Taylor and Fancis, 7(1):84-90.
Bouazza, A., and Finlay, T.W. 1990. Uplift capacity of
plate anchors buried in a two-layered soil,
Geotechnique, ICE Virtual Library, 40(2):293-297.
Dash, B. K. and Pise, P. J. 2003., Effect of
compressive load on uplift capacity of model piles,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 129(11): 987–992.
Davie, J.R. 1973. Behaviour of cohesive soils under
uplift forces. Ph.D Thesis, University of Glasgow,
Glasgow, U.K.
Deb, T., and Pal, S. K. 2017. Study on Uplift behaviour
of single belled anchor piles in sand bed and
multiple regression analyses, International Review
of Civil Engineering, Praise worthy Prize, 3(8):97-
112.
Deb, T., and Pal, S. K. 2017. Study on Uplift behaviour
of single belled anchor piles in sand bed and
multiple regression analyses, International Review
of Civil Engineering, Praise worthy Prize, 3(8):97-
112
Deb, T., and Pal, S. K. 2018. Study on the uplift
behaviour and failure pattern of single belled anchor
with 3d and 2d models in cohesionless soil bed,
Iranian journal of science and technology
transactions of civil engineering, Springer
(Accepted).
Deshmukh, V. B., Dewaikar, D. M., and Choudhury, D.
2010. Computations of uplift capacity of pile anchors
in cohesionless soil.” Acta geotechnica, Springer,
5:87- 94
Dickin, E. A., and Leung, C.F. 1992. The influence of
foundation geometry on uplift behaviour of piles
with enlarged bases, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, NRC Research Press, 29,498-505.
Dickin, E.A., and Leung, C.F. 1990. Performance of
piles with enlarged bases subjected to uplift forces,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, NRC Research
Press, 27:546- 556.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., and Hanna, M. (1991), Uplift
behavior of screw anchors in sand. I: dry sand,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE,117(5):773-793
Gosh, A., and Bera, A. K. 2010. Effect of geotextile ties
on uplift capacity of anchors embedded in sand,
Geotechnical Geology Engineering, Springer, 28:
567-577.
Ilamparuthi, K., and Dickin, E.A., 2001. Predictions of
the uplift response of model belled piles in geogrid-
cell-reinforced sand, Geotextiles and
geomembranes, Elsevier, 19:89-109.
Ilamparuthi, K., and Muthukrishnaiah, K. 1999. Anchors
in sand bed: delineation of rupture surface.”Ocean
Engineering, Elsevier, Vol. 26 :1249-1273.
7
Mittal, S., and Mukherjee, S. 2013. Vertical uplift
capacity of a group of helical screw anchors in
sand, Indian Geotechnical Journal, Springer, 43(3):
238-250.
Mittal, S., and Mukherjee, S. 2013. Vertical uplift
capacity of a group of helical screw anchors in
sand, Indian Geotechnical Journal, Springer, 43(3):
238-250.
Mittal, S., and Mukherjee, S. 2013. Vertical uplift
capacity of a group of helical screw anchors in
sand, Indian Geotechnical Journal, Springer, 43(3):
238-250.
Nazir. R., Moayedi. H., Pratikso. A., and
Mosallanezhad, M. 2014. The uplift load capacity of
an enlarged base pier embedded in dry sand, Saudi
Society for Geosciences, Springer, DOI
10.1007/s12517-014-1721-3.
Nazir. R., Moayedi. H., Pratikso. A., and
Mosallanezhad, M. 2014. The uplift load capacity of
an enlarged base pier embedded in dry sand, Saudi
Society for Geosciences, Springer, DOI
10.1007/s12517-014-1721-3.
Nazir. R., Moayedi. H., Pratikso. A., and
Mosallanezhad, M. 2014. The uplift load capacity of
an enlarged base pier embedded in dry sand, Saudi
Society for Geosciences, Springer, DOI
10.1007/s12517-014-1721-3.
Pal, S.K., 1992. Uplift capacity of shallow and deep
belled anchors tied geofabric strips, M.Tech.
dissertation, Dept. Civ. Eng. IIT Kharagpur, West
Bengal, India.
Rao, A.S., Phanikumar B. R,. Babu, R.D. and K.
Suresh, K. 2007. Pullout behavior of granular pile-
anchors in expansive clay beds in situ, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 133, (5): 531–538.
Rowe, R.K., and Davis, E. H., 1982. The behaviour of
anchor plates in sand, Geotechnique, ICE Virtual
Library, 32(1): 25-41.
Saeedy, H.S. 1987.Stability of circular vertical earth
anchors. Can. Geotech. J., Vol.24,
Sahoo, J.P, and Kumar, J. 2012. Vertical uplift
resistance of two horizontal strip anchors with
common vertical axis, International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, J. Ross Publishing, Inc.
6:485-495.
Saran, S., Ranjan, G., Nene, A.S. 1986. Soil anchors
and constitutive laws, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 112(12):1084-1100.
Tagaya, K., Scott, R.F. and Aboshi, H. 1988. Pull-out
resistance of buried anchors in sand, Soils and
Foundations, 28(3):114-30.
Vanitha, L., Patra, N. R., and Chandra, S. 2007. Uplift
capacity of pile group anchors, Geotechnical
Geological Engineering, Springer, 25, 339-347.