Vertical Uplift Capacity of Equally Spaced Horizontal Strip

Anchors in Sand
K. M. Kouzer1 and Jyant Kumar2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI) on 01/02/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The vertical uplift capacity of an infinite numbers of rigid strip plate anchors placed in a group and embedded in sand, has
been determined. An upper bound theorem of limit analysis in combination with finite elements and linear programming has been used to
perform the analysis. All the anchors are loaded to failure simultaneously with the same magnitudes of the failure loads. For different clear
spacing 共S兲 between the anchors, the magnitude of the efficiency factor 共␰␥兲 is determined; where ␰␥ is the ratio of the failure load for an
interfering strip anchor, for given width 共B兲 and depth 共d兲, to that of an isolated strip anchor having the same width and depth. The
magnitude of ␰␥ has been found to reduce substantially with a decrease in the spacing between the anchors. It was noted that a rigid soil
wedge just above the anchor plate and bounded by planar rupture surfaces separates out and it moves with the velocity same as that of the
anchor plate itself. The results available from the analysis were found to compare reasonably well with the available theoretical and
experimental data from the literature.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1532-3641共2009兲9:5共230兲
CE Database subject headings: Anchors; Failures; Numerical models; Uplift; Sand; Limit analysis; Optimization.

Introduction
A number of theories are available in literature from which the
vertical uplift capacity of a single isolated horizontal strip anchor
can be determined 共Meyerhof and Adams 1968; Rowe and Davis
1982; Murray and Geddes 1987; Kumar 2001; Merifield and
Sloan 2006; Kumar and Kouzer 2008a兲. However, in a number of
cases, anchors are placed in a group. Only limited information is
available in literature to find the interference effect on the vertical
ultimate uplift capacity of a group of several closely spaced hori-
zontal anchors. By using the limit equilibrium approach, the ef-
fect of the interference on the uplift capacity of a group of several
anchors was theoretically studied by Meyerhof and Adams 共1968兲
by considering the vertical equilibrium of a rectangular soil
wedge, encompassing through the outer edges of the extreme an-
chors in the group. For a group of anchors, small scale model
tests have been performed by Hanna et al. 共1972兲 on circular
anchors and by Geddes and Murray 共1996兲 on square anchors. By
using an upper bound limit analysis with the employment of a
simple rigid block mechanism, Kumar and Kouzer 共2008b兲 have
theoretically examined the effect of anchors’ spacing on the mag-
nitude of the vertical uplift resistance for a group of two and an
infinite number of strip anchors placed horizontally in a cohesion-
less medium. Further with an intention of improving the earlier
obtained solution, Kouzer and Kumar 共2009兲 carried out recently
1
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Government Engineering Col-
lege, Thrissur 680 009, Kerala, India. E-mail: kouzer@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore 560012, India 共corresponding author兲. E-mail:
jkumar@civil.iisc.ernet.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 16, 2008; approved on
March 24, 2009; published online on September 15, 2009. Discussion
period open until April 1, 2010; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, Vol. 9, No. 5, November 1, 2009. ©ASCE, ISSN 1532-
3641/2009/5-230–236/$25.00.
a rigorous upper bound finite elements limit analysis for deter-
mining the vertical uplift capacity for a group of two strip anchors
buried in sand; the results from this analysis were found to be
slightly better than those obtained on the basis of a simple rigid
wedge mechanism. It is understood from the existing theoretical
and experimental observations that 共1兲 the vertical uplift capacity
of the anchors reduces quite significantly with a decrease in the
spacing between the anchors, 共2兲 the magnitude of failure loads
for a given spacing reduces continuously with an increase in the
number of anchors in a group. In the present study, it is intended
to perform a rigorous computational analysis for finding the ver-
tical uplift resistance of a strip anchor placed horizontally in a
group of infinite number of anchors; the problem of an infinite
number of anchors was intentionally taken in this study as for this
case the magnitude of the failure load tends to becomes mini-
mum. The analysis was carried by using an upper bound theorem
of limit analysis in combination with finite elements and linear
programming. The effect of the spacing between the anchors 共S兲
was studied in detail for different embedment ratios of anchors.
The nodal velocity patterns in different cases were also studied.
The results from the computational analysis were compared with
the available theoretical and experimental results from the litera-
ture.
Problem Definition
An infinite number of multiple strip anchor plates, having width
B, are placed parallel to each other in a group with a clear dis-
tance S as shown in Fig. 1共a兲. All the anchors are embedded in
sand at the same depth d from the ground surface; the embedment
ratio 共␭兲 of the anchor is defined equal to d / B. The thickness of
the anchor plate is assumed to be negligible; however, it is as-
sumed to be perfectly rigid. The angle of interface friction be-
tween the anchor plate, both lower and upper surface, and the
adjoining soil mass was assumed to be equal to ␾; it is, neverthe-
less, known that the roughness of the anchor plate does not affect

230 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / OCTOBER 2009

Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(5): 230-236

 Pu d Pu
B S B S
(B = Width of anchors)
(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI) on 01/02/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
B S
2 2
G Fig. 2. Different chosen meshes for ␾ = 40° with ␭ = 1
Y
u=0
d u=0
v = Vo
Rigid
Anchor
E F
u = 0, δ = φ
h=B
y (v)
x (u)
O X
u=v=0
Plane of symmetry Plane of symmetry
(b)
Fig. 1. 共a兲 Positioning and loading of the anchors; 共b兲 chosen domain
and boundary conditions
the vertical uplift resistance of horizontal anchors 共Rowe and
Davis 1982; Merifield and Sloan 2006; Kouzer and Kumar 2009兲.
At collapse, it is specified that all the anchors move in the vertical
upward direction with the same velocity V0 and are loaded to
failure simultaneously exactly at the same magnitude of the fail-
ure load. Under these conditions, it is to compute the ultimate
uplift load Pu per unit length of each anchor plate.
Problem Domain and Finite-Element Mesh
It can be seen that 共1兲 the vertical plane OY, passing through the
center line of the anchor, and 共2兲 the vertical plane GX, passing
through the middle point between the two adjacent anchors, will
become the planes of symmetry. Accordingly, the rectangular do-
main OXGY as shown in Fig. 1共b兲, is chosen. The horizontal
boundary line 共OX兲 of this domain, however, needs to be located
at some reasonable distance 共h兲 from the anchor plate such that
the two basic requirements are always met with, that is, 共1兲 the
velocities of all the elements toward the horizontal boundary
共OX兲 remain close to zero, and 共2兲 none of the yielded elements
cross the line OX. Computations have shown that the value of h
equal to B was found to provide acceptable results. Following
velocity boundary conditions were specified 共1兲 along OX, u = v
= 0, and 共2兲 along OY and GX 共the planes of symmetry兲, u = 0;
where, u and v are the two basic unknowns at a node, namely,
horizontal and vertical velocities, respectively. The anchor plate
Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(5): 230-236
Pu
B
was assumed to be perfectly rigid and it was assumed to move in
the vertical direction with a unit upward velocity 共u = 0 ; v = 1兲.
The soil mass within the chosen domain was discretized into
three-noded triangular elements by keeping velocity discontinui-
ties at all the interfaces between the elements. A velocity discon-
tinuity was also considered along the anchor-soil interface at the
top and bottom surface of the anchor. Everywhere along the an-
chor plate, there exists a minimum of three nodes having exactly
the same nodal coordinates, that is, one node along the anchor
plate and remaining two nodes for the soil mass just above and
below the anchor plate, respectively. The finite-element mesh is
generated such that a greater concentration of the elements re-
mains in a region where higher velocity gradients 共around the
edges of the anchor兲 are expected. Typical finite-element meshes
for ␾ = 40° and with three different embedment ratios 共␭兲, namely,
1, 3, and 5 for various spacings, are drawn in Figs. 2–4; where,
␭ = d / B. These figures also provide the numbers of nodes, ele-
ments, and discontinuities for the chosen meshes. It can be no-
ticed from these figures that a greater number of elements as well
as nodes were used for larger values of S / B and ␭.
Analysis
Following Sloan and Kleeman 共1995兲, with the incorporation of
the plastic strains both within elements and along all the velocity
discontinuities, an upper bound finite limit analysis was per-
formed. The yield criterion is expressed as a linear function of
stresses in order that the finite-element formulation leads to a
linear programming problem. The Mohr-Coulomb failure crite-
rion is assumed to be applicable. By using Bottero et al. 共1980兲,
the associated yield surface is approximated by an exterior regular
polygon with p sides, circumscribing the actual failure surface, so
that the solution remains always a rigorous upper bound on the
exact answer. The value of p is kept equal to 24 for performing all
the computations. The rate of the total work done by the external
loads is equated to the rate of dissipation of the total internal
energy dissipated within the elements 共due to body forces and
development of plastic strain兲 and along all the velocity disconti-
nuities 共Chen 1975兲. On this basis, the magnitude of the collapse
load 共Pu兲 is then expressed as a linear function of unknown nodal
velocities and plastic multiplier rates. The upper bound problem
can then be formulated as a linear programming problem in which
the magnitude of Pu needs to be minimized subjected to a number
of linear kinematic constraints.
All the steps for formulating the upper bound analysis as a
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / OCTOBER 2009 / 231
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI) on 01/02/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Different chosen meshes for ␾ = 40° with ␭ = 2

linear programming problem and the associated computational pu = ␥dF␥␰␥ 共1兲

procedure are described in Kumar and Kouzer 共2007兲. On lines
with Kumar and Kouzer 共2007兲, the linear optimization was car- where, F␥ = nondimensional uplift factor for a single isolated an-
ried out by using a linprog library program in MATLAB. chor due to the component of soil unit weight 共␥兲.

Definition of Efficiency Factor ␰␥ Results and Comparisons

The efficiency factor ␰␥ is the ratio of the magnitude of the col-
lapse load for a strip anchor of a given width B and placed at
depth d in a group of infinite of anchors, to that of an isolated
strip anchor with the same values of B and d. The magnitude of
the average ultimate uplift pressure 共pu = Pu / B兲 for an intervening
anchor is determined with the help of the following expression:
The computational results were obtained by varying 共1兲 ␭ be-
tween 1 and 7, and 共2兲 the friction angle 共␾兲 of the soil mass
between 25 and 45 deg. The clear spacing 共S兲 between the an-
chors was increased from 0 to 2.4 times the depth of anchors. The
values of the uplift factor F␥ for isolated anchors were found to be
exactly the same as those reported by Kumar and Kouzer

Fig. 4. Different chosen meshes for ␾ = 40° with ␭ = 5

232 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / OCTOBER 2009

Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(5): 230-236

 1.1 1.1
λ=1 λ=3
1
0.9
0.9

Efficiency factor, ξγ
Efficiency factor, ξγ

0.7
0.8 o
o φ = 25
φ = 25
30o
30o o
0.7 o 35
35 0.5
40o 40o
0.6 45o 45o
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI) on 01/02/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.3
Rigid wedge mechanism (Kumar and Kouzer, 2008b) Rigid wedge mechanism (Kumar and Kouzer, 2008b)
0.5
Present analysis (Upper bound with FEM) Present analysis (Upper bound with FEM)

0.4 0.1
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
S/B S/B
(a)
(a)

1.1 1.1
λ=2 λ=4

0.9
0.9
Efficiency factor, ξγ

Efficiency factor, ξγ
o
0.7
φ = 25 o
0.7 o φ = 25
30 o
30
35o
o 0.5 35o
40
40o
45o o
0.5 45
Rigid wedge mechanism (Kumar and Kouzer, 2008b) 0.3
Rigid wedge mechanism (Kumar and Kouzer, 2008b)
Present analysis (Upper bound with FEM)
Present analysis (Upper bound with FEM)
0.3 0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 2 4 6 8
S/B S/B
(b) (b)

Fig. 5. Variation of efficiency factor 共␰␥兲 with S / B for: 共a兲 ␭ = 1; 共b兲 Fig. 6. Variation of efficiency factor 共␰␥兲 with S / B for: 共a兲 ␭ = 3; 共b兲
␭=2 ␭=4

共2008b兲; the values of F␥ for an isolated anchor are, therefore, not

provided in this paper. The results related with the interference of
anchors are only presented herein.
Efficiency Factor ␰␥
Figs. 5–8 provides the variation of ␰␥ with S / B and ␾ for ␭ = 1 to
7. It can be noticed that on account of anchors’ interference, with
a decrease in spacing between the anchors the magnitude of the
efficiency factor reduces continuously. For the value of S equal to
or greater than 2d tan ␾, the magnitude of ␰␥ becomes almost
equal to 1.0. This implies that for S ⱖ 2d tan ␾, the uplift resis-
tance of the anchors becomes equal to that of an isolated anchor.
The magnitude of ␰␥ becomes minimum for S / B = 0. At S / B = 0,
the value of ␰␥ becomes equal to 1 / 共1 + ␭ tan ␾兲. It can also be
noticed that the magnitude of ␰␥ for given values of S / B and ␭
decreases continuously with an increase in ␾.
Nodal Velocity Patterns
Nodal velocity patterns were drawn in various cases. Typical
nodal velocity patterns, for ␾ = 40° and ␭ = 1, 3, and 5 with dif-
ferent values of S / B, are illustrated in Figs. 9–11. It is observed
that when the clear spacing between the anchors is greater than
2d tan ␾, the velocities of all the elements in a region around the
vertical center line between the two adjacent anchors becomes
simply equal to zero; and the corresponding uplift resistance of all
the anchors simply becomes equal to that of an isolated one. For
interfering anchors, with S ⬍ 2d tan ␾, all the nodes with nonzero
velocities were found to contain within a wedge lying above the
anchor plate. This soil wedge is seen to be intersected by linear
rupture surfaces. The soil mass within this wedge was found to
remain nonplastic and moves upwards mainly in the vertical di-
rection. The rupture surface, emerging from each edge of the
anchor, approximately makes an angle ␾ with vertical; the rupture
surfaces join either the ground surface 共for S ⱖ 2d tan ␾兲 or the
vertical central line between the anchors 共for S ⬍ 2d tan ␾兲 as
shown in Figs. 9–11. All the nodal velocities within rupture sur-
faces were found to have almost equal magnitudes and were gen-
erally seen to act in the vertical upward direction. The extent of
the rupture surface at the ground increases with an increase in the
values of both ␭ and ␾. These observations associated with the
development of the collapse mechanism for the interfering an-
chors almost support the choice of the simple rigid wedge mecha-
nism of Kumar and Kouzer 共2008b兲.
It should be mentioned that the magnitude of ␰␥ for a given
S / B and ␭ decreases continuously with an increase in the value of
the ␾. This can be easily explained if a simple rigid wedge
mechanism bounded by planar rupture surfaces is considered and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / OCTOBER 2009 / 233

Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(5): 230-236

 1.1 1.1
λ=5 λ=7

0.9 0.9
Efficiency factor, ξγ

Efficiency factor, ξγ
0.7 0.7
o
φ = 25 o
φ = 25
30o o
o
30
0.5 35 o
o 0.5 35
40
40o
45o
45o
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI) on 01/02/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.3 0.3
Rigid wedge mechanism (Kumar and Kouzer, 2008b) Rigid wedge mechanism (Kumar and Kouzer, 2008b)
Present analysis (Upper bound with FEM) Present analysis (Upper bound with FEM)
0.1 0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
S/B S/B
(a)
Fig. 8. Variation of efficiency factor 共␰␥兲 with S / B and ␭ = 7
1.1
λ=6

0.9
strip anchors, and 共2兲 the experimental results of Hanna et al.
Efficiency factor, ξγ

共1972兲 for a group of 共a兲 five and seven circular anchors placed in
0.7
o
a single row and 共b兲 a group of 5 ⫻ 5 circular anchors. Hanna et
φ = 25
al. 共1972兲 have performed these small scale model tests on 38-
30o
0.5 35o
mm-diameter plate-shaped circular anchors embedded in sand
40
o with ␾ = 37°, ␥ = 14.88 kN/ m3, and ␭ = 6. The comparison of all
45o theses results is provided in Fig. 12共a兲. For the purpose of com-
0.3 parison, the values of ␰␥ from the present computational analysis
Rigid wedge mechanism (Kumar and Kouzer, 2000b)
as well those from the theory of Meyerhof and Adams 共1968兲
Present analysis (Upper bound with FEM)
were also obtained for ␭ = 6 with ␾ = 35°. It can be seen that the
0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
present values of ␰␥ are slightly lower than the theoretical results
S/B of Meyerhof and Adams 共1968兲 and the experimental values of ␰␥
(b) of Hanna et al. 共1972兲 for 5 ⫻ 1 and 7 ⫻ 1 circular anchors. On the
other hand, the experimental values of ␰␥ from Hanna et al.
Fig. 7. Variation of efficiency factor 共␰␥兲 with S / B for: 共a兲 ␭ = 5; 共b兲 共1972兲 for 5 ⫻ 5 circular anchors were found to be even lower
␭=6 than the present analysis as well the theory of Meyerhof and
Adams 共1968兲. It should be mentioned that the case of the mul-
tiple strip anchors in a group will be equivalent to an “infinity
a closed form expression is developed for finding the ␰␥. For this number of square anchors with zero spacing placed in a single
purpose, the previous study of the writers 共Kumar and Kouzer row with an infinity number of such rows spaced with a given
2008b兲 can be referred. value of S / B.” It can be clearly noticed that for 5 ⫻ 5 circular
anchors, the value of the efficiency factor has become even
smaller than the results from the present theoretical analysis. Fur-
Comparison of the Present Results with the Available ther, the ␰␥ from the present analysis has been generated for a
Theoretical and Experimental Results from Literature little higher value of ␾. Since the experimental values are for
The values of the efficiency factor ␰␥ obtained from the present
analysis were compared with those determined based on a rigid
wedge mechanism 共Kumar and Kouzer 2008b兲. The comparison
of all these results is provided in Figs. 5–8. It can be noticed that
the values of ␰␥ obtained from the present analysis generally pro-
vide marginally lower values 共better upper bound values兲 of ␰␥ as
compared to those obtained on the basis of a simply rigid wedge
mechanism for lower ␾ values 共␾ ⬍ 35°兲. However, for higher ␾
values 共␾ ⱖ 35°兲, the values of ␰␥ obtained from the present
analysis match were found to be more or less the same as based
on a simple rigid wedge mechanism. Therefore, this comparison
reveals that the analysis based on a simple rigid wedge mecha-
nism provides quite acceptable answers for ␾ ⱖ 35°. However, for
lower values of ␾, the rigorous computational analysis will pro-
vide a better upper bound solution of the problem.
The values of the efficiency factor obtained from the present
analysis were compared with the 共1兲 theoretical results of Meyer- Fig. 9. Variation of nodal velocity patterns with S / B for ␾ = 40° and
hof and Adams 共1968兲 for a group of several 共an infinite number兲 ␭=1

234 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / OCTOBER 2009

Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(5): 230-236

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI) on 01/02/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Variation of nodal velocity patterns with S / B for ␾ = 40° and ␭ = 3

higher values of ␾, the difference between the two will decrease
further as for a given S / B, the value of ␰␥ from the theory will
increase with a decrease in the value of ␾.
Fig. 12共b兲 illustrates a comparison of ␰␥ obtained from the
present computational study for ␭ = 4 with the 共1兲 theory of Mey-
erhof and Adams 共1968兲 for an infinite number of multiple strip
anchors, and 共2兲 experimental results of Geddes and Murray
共1996兲 for a group of 共a兲 five square anchors in a row, and 共b兲
2 ⫻ 2 square anchors. Geddes and Murray 共1996兲 have performed
experiments on 50.8-mm square anchors embedded in sand with
␾ = 43.6° and ␥ = 16.5 kN/ m3 placed in a steel box of size
1.28 m ⫻ 1.22 m ⫻ 0.89 m with embedment ratio 共␭兲 equal to 4.
The results from both the theories were obtained for ␾ = 45°. It
can be noticed that the present values of ␰␥ are found to be
slightly smaller than those given by the experimental data of Ged-
des and Murray 共1996兲 and the theory of Meyerhof and Adams
共1968兲. It can be noted the values of ␰␥ for 2 ⫻ 2 anchors are
found to be smaller than that of 5 ⫻ 1 anchors. In other words, the
gap between the theory and the experimental results will become
smaller when the experiments will be carried out for a greater
number of anchors in the group and also it should be noted that
predicted value of ␰␥ from the theory for ␾ = 43.6° will become a
little higher than that with ␾ = 45° and, therefore, this will reduce
the gap between the theoretical and experimental data. It is ex-
pected that a better comparison between the theory and experi-
mental data will result, provided that the experiments are
conducted on a group of strip anchors rather than employing ei-
ther square or circular anchors.
Conclusions
By performing an upper bound limit analysis in combination with
finite elements, the vertical uplift resistance is obtained for an
infinite number of equally spaced rough strip anchors placed in
sand. It was noted that when the clear spacing 共S兲 between the
anchors is approximately greater than 2d tan ␾, hardly any inter-

Fig. 11. Variation of nodal velocity patterns with S / B for ␾ = 40° and ␭ = 5

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / OCTOBER 2009 / 235

Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(5): 230-236

 1.1 in ␾. From the observed nodal velocity patterns, it was seen that
λ=6 in all the cases the soil mass lying above the anchor moves almost
0.9 as a single rigid unit with the velocity same as that of the anchor
itself. The numerical solution obtained in this paper provides a
Efficiency factor, ξγ

0.7 o
reasonable comparison with the available experimental and theo-
Exp. Data: φ = 37
Theories: φ = 35
o retical data from literature.
0.5 Hanna et al. (1972)- 5 x 1 circular anchors
Hanna et al. (1972)- 7 x 1 circular anchors
Hanne et al. (1972)- 5 x 5 circular anchors References
0.3 Meyerhof and Adams (1968) - strip anchors
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI) on 01/02/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Present analysis - strip anchors

Bottero, A., Negre, R., Pastor, J., and Turgeman, S. 共1980兲. “Finite ele-
0.1 ment method and limit analysis theory for soil mechanics problem.”
0 2 4 6 8 10 Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 22共1兲, 131–149.
S/B Chen, W. F. 共1975兲. Limit analysis and soil plasticity, Elsevier, Amster-
(a) dam, The Netherlands.
Geddes, J. D., and Murray, E. J. 共1996兲. “Plate anchor groups pulled
1.1 vertically in sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 122共7兲, 509–516.
Hanna, T. H., Sparks, R., and Yilmaz, M. 共1972兲. “Anchor behaviour in
0.9
sand.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 98共11兲, 1187–1207.
Kouzer, K. M., and Kumar, J. 共2009兲. “Vertical uplift capacity of two
Efficiency factor, ξγ

λ=4 interfering horizontal anchors in sand using an upper bound limit

0.7 analysis.” Comput. Geotech., 36共6兲, 1084–1089.
Theories: φ = 45
o

o
Kumar, J. 共2001兲. “Seismic vertical uplift capacity of strip anchors.” Geo-
Exp. Data: φ = 43.6
0.5 technique, 51共3兲, 275–279.
Kumar, J., and Kouzer, K. M. 共2007兲. “Effect of footing roughness on
Geddes and Murray (1996) - 5 x 1 square anchors bearing capacity factor N␥.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133共5兲,
0.3 Geddes and Murray (1996)- 2 x 2 square anchors
Meyerhof and Adams (1968) - strip anchors
502–511.
Present analysis - strip anchors Kumar, J., and Kouzer, K. M. 共2008a兲. “Vertical uplift capacity of hori-
0.1 zontal anchors using upper bound limit analysis and finite elements.”
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Can. Geotech. J., 45, 698–704.
S/B Kumar, J., and Kouzer, K. M. 共2008b兲. “Vertical uplift capacity of a
(b) group of shallow horizontal anchors in sand.” Geotechnique, 58共10兲,
821–824.
Fig. 12. Comparison of ␰␥ from the present analysis with the theory Merifield, R. S., and Sloan, S. W. 共2006兲. “The ultimate pullout capacity
of Meyerhof and Adams 共1968兲 and the experimental data of: 共a兲 of anchors in frictional soils.” Can. Geotech. J., 43共8兲, 852–868.
Meyerhof, G. G., and Adams, S. I. 共1968兲. “The ultimate uplift capacity
Hanna et al. 共1972兲; 共b兲 Geddes and Murray 共1996兲
of foundations.” Can. Geotech. J., 5共4兲, 225–244.
Murray, E. J., and Geddes, J. D. 共1987兲. “Uplift of anchor plates in sand.”
J. Geotech. Engrg., 113共3兲, 202–215.
ference between the adjoining anchors exists. On the other hand, Rowe, R. K., and Davis, E. H. 共1982兲. “The behaviour of anchor plates in
for S ⬍ 2d tan ␾, the uplift resistance of anchors decreases sub- sand.” Geotechnique, 32共1兲, 25–41.
stantially with a decrease in the spacing between the anchors, and Sloan, S. W., and Kleeman, P. W. 共1995兲. “Upper bound limit analysis
the value of ␰␥ becomes minimum at S / B = 0. For given values of using discontinuous velocity fields.” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
S / B and ␭, the magnitude of ␰␥ becomes smaller with an increase Eng., 127共4兲, 293–314.

236 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / OCTOBER 2009

Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(5): 230-236