INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY CHENNAI CHAPTER

Pullout Capacity of Model Piles in Sand

1 2
K. Kimi Bose and A. Krishnan

ABSTRACT: A large scale experimental program using vertical and batter model piles in sand subjected to pull out loads has been
carried out in a model tank of size 1m x 1m x 1m. Mild steel pipes of varying diameters, lengths, and shapes are used as model piles. A
poorly graded river sand having specific gravity G= 2.67, Uniformity coefficient= 3.53, emax = 0.81, emin = 0.54 has been used as
foundation medium. The influence of pile inclination, pile length, diameter, surface characteristics and shape were investigated. It is
inferred that net ultimate pullout capacity increases significantly with increase in length to diameter ratio. Pullout capacity also increases
with increase in diameter. Net ultimate pullout capacity increases with increase in batter angle attains a maximum value and then
decreases. Sand coated piles are found to be resisting more pullout forces than smooth piles. It is also found that for piles of varying
shape but of constant volume, circular pile will resist more uplift force compared to square or rectangular piles. The experimental values
of net ultimate pullout capacities have been compared with predictions made by available theories.

KEYWORDS: Pullout capacity, Model piles, Sand bed, Batter Piles, Pile roughness

for determining the ultimate uplift capacity of inclined

Introduction piles.

When structures are constructed below the
ground water table or if they are constructed under water
uplift forces are to be applied on the basement of
structures. Also in the case of transmission line towers,
mooring systems for ocean surface or submerged
platforms, tall chimneys etc are usually subjected to
overturning moments due to wind, wave pressure or ship
impact etc. These overturning moments are transferred
to structures foundation in the form of compression on
some elements and pullout on others. The type of
foundation usually recommended is a combination of
vertical and batter piles. In this paper the behaviour of
vertical and batter piles under pull out loads has been
investigated.
To study the effect of pile inclination, pile length,
diameter, shape, surface characteristics and pile tip
properties on uplift capacity of piles, laboratory
experimental investigation is carried out.
Meyerhof(1973) presented an analysis to
determine the axial pullout resistance of batter piles. For
pile of inclination, with vertical axis α, and vertical depth
of embedment, D, ignoring pile weight, the pullout
resistance, Pu is given as,
Pu = ( ρο'K u tanδ ) As (1)
cosα
pα = pο (2)
( α +tanα )
cos
Where Po = Net ultimate uplift capacity of vertical
pile
For vertical piles, Po =Pu -W
Hanna and Afram(1986) suggested an analytical
procedure to evaluate ultimate pullout resistance Pα as
Pα = Pcos ( α/2 ) (3)
Chattopadhyay and Pise (1986)
proposed a theoretical analysis for predicting the axial
uplift capacity of inclined piles, embedded in sand. They
concluded that for equal length piles, the ultimate uplift
capacity of inclined pile increases with increase in
inclination of pile and decreases after reaching maximum
value of αL at α=(15°to 22.5°). Pise and Sharma (1994)
carried out extensive work on uplift behaviour of anchor
piles in sand under axial pulling loads. A comparison was
made between between the experimental and theoretical
and experimental values. It was concluded that uplift
capacity increases with increase in pile friction angle,
depth of embedment and B/d ratio.

where, Different theories regarding behaviour of piles

As = Embedded pile surface area
ρo′ = Average effective overburden pressure= γD/2
Ku = Uplift coefficient
δ = Pile–soil friction angle
Awad and Ayoub (1976) studied about the
ultimate uplift capacity of vertical and inclined anchors in
cohesion less soil. An empirical equation was developed
under different loading conditions have been developed
over the years. The reliability of the theories can be
demonstrated only by comparison of experimental results
on model or field piles with the theoretical predictions.
Full-scale field tests, though highly desirable, are
generally expensive and difficult to perform. In the
absence of resources and scope of testing prototype
small scale laboratory model test conducted on piles in
foundation medium prepared under controlled condition
may serve the purpose to some extent. Properly
conducted laboratory tests, with known parameters

1
M.E Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Government College of Technology, Coimbatore kimikichu@yahoo.co.in
2
Asst. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Government College of Technology, Coimbatore.
50 STUDENTS PAPER COMPETITION 2009

affecting the soil-pile response under pulling loads would Table 1 Height of Fall and Relative Density
provide information on qualitative and quantitative
contributions of such parameters on ultimate resistance
of piles in the absence of field test results. Height of Unit Weight Relative
3 Void Ratio
fall (cm) (kN/m ) Density in %
Compared to previous studies in this area, this
investigation proposes to consider wider range of 0 14.73 0.813 0
parameters and their effects on the uplift capacity of 5 15.4 0.734 30
piles.
10 15.7 0.700 42
Experimental Set Up and Model Tests 15 15.99 0.670 53
20 16.23 0.645 62
Testing Programme
25 16.45 0.623 70
Tests under axial pullout have been carried out on 30 16.68 0.601 80
tubular mild steel model piles having outer diameter
27.5mm, 33mm, 47mm at different angles with vertical 35 16.88 0.582 85
axis as 0°, 10°, 20° and 30°.The model piles have been
40 17.06 0.565 92
tested for L/d ratios 8, 16, 24 and 32 and three different
surface roughnesses of piles. All tests have been 50 17.25 0.548 98
conducted in model chamber of size 1000mmx 1000mmx 60 17.32 0.542 100
1000mm deep.
Test Arrangement
The tests were performed in dry local
3
river sand of unit weight 16.68 kN/m ; angle of shearing
resistance of 38°; relative density,Dr ≅80%. Axial pullout loads were applied to the piles
through double pulley arrangement The steel loading
The test programme consisted of the following frame, movable along the length of chamber with an
arrangement. inverted pulley was used to align the axis of batter pile
and wire rope. The non-extensible steel wire rope was
> Vertical and inclined piles subjected to axial pull. attached to the pile top by bolting. The wire rope was
The angle of inclination being 10°,20°and30° with taken first through an inverted pulley and then over the
respect to vertical direction. second pulley. Loading pan where dead weights were put
for loading was fixed at the other end of wire as shown in
> Vertical piles of constant length but different Figure1. The position of first pulley was fixed according to
diameters subjected to vertical pull. the alignment of the wire rope and pile axis as per the
> Vertical and inclined piles of constant length but inclination of the pile. A long steel flat plate was placed
different surface characteristics subjected to along the width of the chamber to mount magnetic base
vertical pull. of two dial gauges. Two dial gauges were fixed
equidistant from pile axis. The loads were applied by
> Vertical piles of constant volume but different dead weights in the loading pan starting the smallest,
shapes such as round, square and rectangle with gradual increase in stages. Dial gauge readings
subjected to vertical pull. were observed for both dial gauges for each increment of
loading when it becomes stable. Average value of
Properties of Soil used in the Test displacement as recorded from both the dial gauges have
been taken as axial displacement of the pile
A poorly graded river sand having specific gravity corresponding to the pullout load applied.
G= 2.67 was used for the tests. The D10, D 30, D60 of the
soil are 0.17mm,0.25mm and 0.6mm. The coefficient of
curvature (Cc) and uniformity coefficient (Cu) of the soil
are 0.61 and 3.53. According to Indian Standard
Classification System, this soil can be classified as poorly
graded sand with a letter symbol SP.

To determine the density and void ratio of sand,

a number of trials have been carried out for varying
heights of fall. It was understood that the height of fall of
sand goes on increasing, the density of sand increases.
To verify this, a steel rectangular box of size
335mmx235mmx35mm depth was used to pour the sand
with help of hopper. The box was filled with sand for
different heights of fall ie, 0cm, 5cm, 10cm, 15cm, 20cm,
25cm, 30cm, 35cm, 40cm, 50cm, 60cm.

For every height of fall, corresponding unit

weight, void ratio, relative densities were calculated and
are shown in Table 1 Fig 1. Model Pile and Test Set-up
 PULLOUT CAPACITY OF MODEL PILES IN SAND 51

Test Procedure 0.12

0.1
The technique of sand placement plays an

PULLOUT LOAD (kN)

important role in the process of getting reproducible 0.08
α=0°
densities in a reasonable amount of time. The reliability α=10°
0.06
of the results depends much on the density of foundation α=20°
material and therefore the required density of sand was 0.04
α=30°

predetermined. According to that, the sand was poured in

the chamber continuously through the slit of hopper 0.02
keeping the height of the fall of sand of about 30cm. This
technique was used by Pise, (1969); Pal,(1983); and 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Chattopadhyay,(1986).
AXIAL DISPLACEMENT (mm)

After placing the pile in position the sand was Fig 2. Pull out Load Versus Axial Displacement in mm for
poured uniformly around the pile by moving hopper by L/d=16 for Smooth Piles
hand. The dial gauge fixing arrangement was attached to
the pile top by tightening bolt and screw arrangement. 0.18
This method of sand pouring gave the placement unit 0.16
3
weight of 16.68 kN/m corresponding to relative density 0.14
Dr≅80%.

P ULLOUT LOAD (kN)

0.12
α=0°
0.1 α=10°
Test Results 0.08 α=20°
α=30°
0.06
Pullout Load-Axial Displacement Diagrams 0.04

0.02
Pullout Load versus Axial Displacement 0
Diagrams for Variation in Length and Batter -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Angle AXIAL DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Fig 3. Pull out Load Versus Axial Displacement in mm for

In general the load displacement responses for all
L/d=16 for Medium Rough Piles
the piles are similar. It is observed that load displacement
diagrams are practically linear at initial stages of loading
0.35
for different batter angles and then they are non linear.
The Figures 2 to 4 show the load displacement diagram 0.3
for L/d=16 for different surface finishes. Figure 5 shows
Pullout Load(kN)

typical load-displacement curves for piles having L/d=16 0.25 α=0

α=10
for different surface finishes at α=0°. It can be clearly 0.2
α=20
seen that for a particular displacement the pile resistance α=30
0.15
to pullout load increases with surface finishes smooth to
rough. 0.1

Figure 6 show typical load-displacement curves 0.05

for piles having different L/d ratios for batter angle of 0

α=20°. It can be clearly seen that for a particular 0 1 2 3 4
displacement the pile resistance to pullout load increases Axial Displacement(mm)
with increase in L/d ratio of the pile. In general the
responses are found to be similar. As the L/d ratio of pile Fig 4. Pull out Load Versus Axial Displacement in mm for
increases, the resistance offered by the pile at any axial L/d=16 for Rough Piles
displacement increases significantly.

0.18
0.3
0.16
0.25
0.14
PULLOUT LOAD (kN)

P ULLOUT LOAD IN kN

0.12 0.2
smooth for L/d=8
0.1
medium rough for L/d=16
0.15
0.08 for L/d=24
rough
for L/d=32
0.06 0.1
0.04
0.05
0.02

0 0
-1 0 1 2 3 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
AXIAL DISPLACEMENT (mm) AXIAL DISPLACEMENT IN mm

Fig 5. Influence of Surface Finish on Pullout Fig 6. Influence of Length on Pullout

Load - Displacement Response load - Displacement Response α=20°
52 STUDENTS PAPER COMPETITION 2009

Pullout Load versus Axial Displacement Net Ultimate Pullout Capacity Diagrams
Diagrams for Variation in Diameter
The experimental value of net ultimate pullout
Figure 7 shows the variation of uplift capacity with capacity, Pu has been calculated by deducting the
diameter of pile. It is found that as diameter increases the component of weight of pile i.e, Wcosα from the ultimate
uplift capacity also increases. pullout capacity, Po. Where W is the weight of model pile.

Variation of net uplift capacity with batter angle

0.16

0.14 The variation of net ultimate pullout capacity, Pu

0.12
with respect to the batter angle is shown in Figure10.
PULLOUT LOAD(kN)

From this figure it is seen that net ultimate pullout

0.1
DIA=27.5mm capacity increases with increase in α, attains maximum
0.08 DIA=33mm value and then decreases. The maximum value of Pu
0.06
DIA=37mm corresponds to batter angle α≅20.
0.04
0.3

nET ULTIMATE PULLOUT CAPACITY(

0.02
0.25
0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.2
AXIAL DISPLACEMENT(mm) L/d=8
L/d=16

kN)
0.15
L/d=24
Fig 7. Variation of Uplift Capacity with the Diameter of Pile 0.1
L/d=32

0.05

Pullout Load versus Axial Displacement 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Diagrams for Variation in Shape (Figure 8) BATTER ANGLE

Fig 10. Net Uplift Capacity Versus Batter Angle

0.1

0.09
Variation of net ultimate pullout capacity, Pu
0.08
with diameter of pile (Figure 11)
P ULLOUT LOAD (kN)

0.07
0.06 square 0.142
NET ULTIMATE PULLOUT CAPACITY

0.05 rectangle
round 0.14
0.04

0.03 0.138

0.02 0.136
(kN)

0.01 L/d=24
0.134
0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0.132
AXIAL DISPLACEMENT(mm)
0.13
Fig 8. Variation of Uplift Capacity with the Shape of Pile. 0.128
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
DIAMETER OF PILE (mm)

Pullout Load versus Axial Displacement Fig 11. Net Uplift Capacity Versus Diameter of Pile
Diagrams for Variation in Surface Characteristics
Variation of net ultimate pullout capacity, Pu
with shape of pile (Figure 12)
0.18

0.16

0.14 0.1
P ULLOUT LO AD (kN)

CAPACITY (kN)
NET ULTIMATE

0.12 0.08
α=0°
PULLOUT

0.1 α=10°
0.06
0.08 α=20°
α=30° VOLUME=0.003
0.06 0.04 m3
0.04 0.02
0.02
0
0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
AXIAL DISPLACEMENT (mm) LENGTH OF PILE (m)

Fig 9. Variation of Uplift Capacity for Medium Rough Piles Fig 12. Net Uplift capacity versus length of pile
 PULLOUT CAPACITY OF MODEL PILES IN SAND 53

Variation of net ultimate pullout capacity, Pu

with L/d Ratio (Figure 13) MEYERHOF
0.06

P U L L O U T C A P A C IT Y
0.05

N E T U L T IM A T E
0.3
NET ULTIMATE PULLOUT CAPACITY(kN)

HANNA and AFRAM

0.04
0.25
0.03 AWAD and AYOUB
0.2
α=0 0.02
α=10
0.15 0.01 CHATTOPADHYAY and
α=20 PISE
α=30 0
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 PRESENT
EXPERINENTAL
0.05 BATTER ANGLE INVESTIGATION

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Fig 14. Net ultimate pullout capacity- Batter angle for L/d=8
L/d

Fig 13. Net Uplift capacity versus L/d Ratio

MEYERHOF
BATTER ANGLE
0.12
Comparison of Results 0.1 HANNA and AFRAM

N E T U L T IM A T E

C A P A C IT Y (k N )
PULLO UT
The validity of any experimental work can be 0.08
AWAD and AYOUB
proved only by comparing those results with established 0.06
results. The experimental results are used to check the
validity by comparing them with those values calculated 0.04
CHATTOPADHYAY
from theories proposed by Meyerhof (1973), Awad and 0.02 and PISE
Ayoub(1976), Chattopadhyay and Pise(1986) and Hanna
0
and Afram(1986). These comparisons are presented in PRESENT
Figures 14 to 17. Meyerhof’s theory, Hanna and Afram’s 0 10 20 30 40 EXPERIMENTAL
BATTER ANGLE INVESTIGATION
theory and Awad and Ayoub gives general decreasing
trend for Pu values with respect to increasing α values Fig 15. Net ultimate pullout capacity - Batter angle for
which is found to be conflicting with observed L/d=16
experimental variation. The results from Chattopadhyay
and Pise’s theory show general trend of initial increase 0.25
and then decrease in Pu values with respect to increase
in α-value having maximum value of Pu at α ≅20°. Upto MEYERHOF
NET ULTIM ATE PULLOUT

0.2
60% plus or minus variation has been found from the HANNA and AFRAM
CAPACITY(kN)

experimental Pu values. 0.15

AWAD and AYOUB

Conclusion 0.1 CHATTOPADHYAY and

PISE

0.05 PRESENT EXPERIMENTAL

> From the laboratory investigations that have been INVESTIGATION

carried out, the following conclusions are drawn. 0

0 10 20 30 40
> Axial pullout load versus axial displacement
BATTER ANGLE
diagrams for batter piles are practically linear at
initial stages of loading and non-linear at later Fig 16. Net ultimate pullout capacity - Batter angle for
stages. L/d=24
> The resistances offered by the pile at any axial
displacement increases significantly with increase
roughness of pile i.e, sand coated piles are found 0.45
NET ULTIM ATE P ULLOUT CAP ACITY

to be resisting more pullout forces than smooth 0.4

MEYERHOF
piles. 0.35

0.3 HANNA and AFRAM

> The resistances offered by pile at any axial
displacement increases significantly with increase 0.25 AWAD and AYOUB
(kN)

in L/d ratio. 0.2

CHATTOPADHYAY and
0.15 PISE
> Axial displacement of about 3% to 10% of pile 0.1 PRESENT EXPERIMENTAL
diameter is required to attain the ultimate pullout INVESTIGATION
0.05
capacity.
0
0 10 20 30 40
> The net ultimate pullout capacity of a pile
BATTER ANGLE
increases significantly with increase in L/d ratio.
> Net ultimate pullout capacity of a pile increases Fig 17. Net ultimate pullout capacity - Batter angle for
with increase in batter angle,α, attains maximum L/d=32
54 STUDENTS PAPER COMPETITION 2009
value and then decreases. The maximum value of
Pu occurs at α≅20, and it is about 10% to 20%
more than the vertical pile capacity.
> Pullout capacity also increases with increase in
diameter.
> It is also found that for piles of varying shape but
of constant volume, circular pile will resist more
uplift force compared to square or rectangular
piles.
> The variation of net ultimate pullout capacity with
batter angle, by Chattopadhyay and Pise (1986)
analysis is qualitatively similar to observed
experimental variation. The theory also predicts
maximum capacity at α≅20.
> Method of Meyerhof (1973) and Hanna and Afram
(1986) Awad and Ayoub(1976) predict decreasing
trend of Pu values with increase in α-value.
References
A.Awad And Ayoub(1976): ‘Ultimate Uplift Capacity of
Vertical and Inclined Piles in Cohesion less Soils.’,
th
Proc.5 conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering,Budafest, pp. 221-226.
Chattopadhyay, B.C. And Pise, P.J.(1986): ‘Axial Uplift
Capacity of Inclined Piles’, Indian Geotechnical Journal
Vol.16, No. 3, pp.198-213.
Das, B.M. And Seeley, G.R.(1975): ‘Uplift Capacity of
Buried Model Piles in Sand’, Journal of GTE Div.,ASCE,
Vol.10, pp.1091-1094.
Hanna, A.M. And Afram, A.(1986): ‘Pullout Capacity of
Single Batter Piles in Sand’, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol.23, No.3, pp.387-392.
Ismael, N.F. And Klym, T.W.(1979): ‘Uplift and Bearing
Capacity of short piers in sand’, Journal of GTE Div.,
ASCE, Vol.105, No.5, pp.579-594.
Meyerhof, G.G. And Adams, J.I.(1968): ‘The ultimate
uplift capacity of foundation’, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol.5, No.4, pp.225-244.
K.Rajagopal And V.Srihari(1998): ‘Experimental
Investigations on Pullout Capacity of Vertical Anchors’,
Indian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.28(2), pp147-166.
Shanker, K., Basudhar, P. K. And Patra N. R.(2006):
‘Uplift Capacity of Single Piles Embedded in Sand’, IGJ.,
Vol. 36. No. 4, pp.334-347.
B.V.R Sharma And P.J Pise.(1994): ‘Uplift Capacity of
Anchor Piles in Sand Under Axial Pulling Loads’, Indian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol.24 (3), pp181-202.