Numerical Investigation of the Uplift Resistance of Plate Strip

Anchor in Sand

M. Tolun1, B. Emirler1, M. Laman1

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey, tolunm@cu.edu.tr
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey, emirlerbuse@gmail.com
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey, mlaman@cu.edu.tr

Abstract
During the last 30 years some researchers have proposed approximate techniques to estimate the uplift resistance
of plate anchors. Current design practises are largely based on empirical studies as the majority of past
researches have been investigated experimentally. Furthermore, limited availability of numerical analyses have
been performed to determine the uplift resistance of plate anchors. In this study, the uplift resistance of plate
strip anchor has been investigated in sand numerically. The plate strip anchor used in the analyses has 1m wide.
The investigated parameters are embedment ratio of anchors (H/B) and aspect ratio (L/B) in plate strip anchor.
For this purpose, a series of finite element analyses have been carried out by using Plaxis 3D. Centrifuge tests
performed by Dickin and Laman (2007) have been used to compare the experimental results with those obtained
from Plaxis 3D. It is concluded from the results of analyses that the uplift resistance increases with the increase
of embedment ratio (H/B) and aspect ratio (L/B).

Keywords: numerical analysis, uplift resistance, plate strip anchor, Plaxis 3D.

1 Introduction
Nowadays, various kinds of structures are needed due to the changes in necessities. Depending on these needs, it
has become inevitable to use the foundation systems in different types. Foundation systems of specific structures
such as high-voltage power lines, communication towers (radio and television towers etc.), long factory
chimneys, sea platforms (dock structures made in seafloor, platforms underwater and wave breaker structures
etc.), columns carrying the advertising boards, signs in freeway, railways and pipelines have been subjected to
different loading conditions. These structures are under the influence of uplift loading conditions. Some
examples of the mentioned uplift forces are eccentricity based forces; lifting force in structures constructed
afloat, forces in cables and lifting forces in empty silos.

1
ACE2016

Although it is generally enough for foundation systems to be analyzed and designed in terms of compression
forces, some foundation systems under uplift forces should be designed according to the factors affecting the
uplift resistance. For this purpose, anchor systems have been used effectively in structures subjected to uplift
forces recently. However, these anchor systems are affected by some factors such as soil properties, loading
conditions, embedment ratio and anchor group configuration.

Murray and Geddes (1987) investigated the vertical uplift resistance of anchor plates in sand. Factors
investigated in relation to the load-displacement response were the size and shape of plate, depth of embedment,
sand density, and plate surface roughness. Dickin and Laman (2007) studied uplift response of strip anchors in
cohesionless soil, phsically and numerically. Physical and computational studies investigating the uplift response
of 1 m wide strip anchors in sand showed the maxiumum resistances increased with anchor embedment ratio and
sand packing. Agreement between the uplift capacities from centrifuge and finite element modelling using by
Plaxis, based on 0.2 m computed maximum displacements, was excellent for anchors up to embedment ratios of
6, but some divergence occured for deeper anchors. Wang et al. (2010) performed finite element analyses to
investigate the vertical uplift resistance of anchor plates. The effects of anchor roughness, aspect ratio, and soil
properties were investigated in these analyses. It was found that the anchor roughness had minimal effect on
anchor performance. Deshmukh et al. (2011) investigated net uplift resistance of horizontal strip anchor in
cohesionnless soil by using Kötter’s equation. Results obtained from the proposed method were compared with
the available experimental results for dense and loose cohesionless soil. The comparison of results with available
theoretical solutions showed that, proposed method made better predictions for anchor embedment ratio less than
8 in dense cohesionless soils. Liu et al. (2012) performed a series of model tests to investigate the influence of
particle size, soil density, and anchor embedment depth on soil deformation. On the basis of this study, it was
found that soil deformation and the uplift resistance of plate anchors were substantially influenced by soil
density and anchor embedment depth, whereas particle size within the studied range had limited influence.
Niroumand and Kassim (2014) investigated uplift response of rectangular anchor plates in physical model tests
and numerical simulation by using Plaxis 2D. Agreement between the uplift responses from the physical model
tests and finite elemet modeling, based on computed maximum displacements were excellent for rectangular
anchor plates. This study showed that the finite element results gave higher than the experimental findings in
dense and loose packing of cohesionless soil. Bhattacharya and Kumar (2016) computed the vertical uplift
resistance of strip and circular plate anchors embedded horizontally in layered sandy medium by using the plane
strain and axisymmetric lower-bound limit analyses. The uplift resistance increased continuously with the
increase of Hdense/H. As compared with strip anchors, the uplift factors became considerably greater for circular
anchors The effect of the variation of the unit weights of the two layers above the anchor plate on its uplift
resistance was also studied. The results obtained from the analyses compared well with the available theoretical
and experimental data.

In this study, the uplift resistance of plate strip anchor has been investigated in sand numerically. The plate strip
anchor used in the analyses has 1m wide. The investigated parameters are embedment ratio of anchors (H/B) and
aspect ratio (L/B) in plate strip anchor. For this purpose, a series of finite element analyses have been carried out
by using Plaxis 3D. Centrifuge tests performed by Dickin and Laman (2007) have been used to compare the
experimental results with those obtained from Plaxis 3D. It is concluded from the results of analyses that the
uplift resistance increases with the increase of the embedment ratio (H/B) and aspect ratio (L/B).

2 Material and Methods

The present study has been done on numerical basis using the software Plaxis 3D. The properties of soil and
plate anchor required for the analysis have been referred from the paper presented by Dickin and Laman (2007)
and validated by comparing results obtained by them.

2.1 Experimental Setup

The original experiment had been carried out by Dickin and Laman (2007) in the laboratory by using centrifuge
modeling. The centrifuge incorporates balances swinging buckets, which are basically 0.57m long, 0.46m wide,
and 0.23m deep. The average unit weight achieved in the centrifuge tests were 16.0kN/m3 for sand. Centrifuge
tests were carried out on 25mm wide, 3mm thick stainless steel model anchor plates with aspect ratio L/B= 8 at
embedment ratios H/B=3 and 7 in sand medium. The model anchor plates were subjected to accelerations of 40
gravities in flight, and therefore experienced stress levels similar to those around 1m wide prototype anchors.
The package arrangement for the study is shown in Figure 1.

2
 M. Tolun, B. Emirler, M. Laman

0.46m

Figure 1. Centrifuge package arrangement for uplift tests on strip anchors (Dickin and Laman, 2007)

2.2 Finite Element Analysis

In the study, a series of finite element analyses have been carried out by using Plaxis 3D (Figure 2). The uplift
resistance of plate anchors has been determined according to plastic calculation and staged construction in the
analyses. Firstly, an experimental data was used to compare with material models in Plaxis such as Mohr
Coulomb and Hardening Soil (HS) models. According to a series of analyses carrying out with them, it was
understood that the uplift resistance obtained from analysis of Plaxis 3D with Hardening Soil model agreed
considerably well with that of an experimental data. The Hardening Soil (HS) model parameters used for sand
soil are given in Table 1. Five different mesh densities are available in Plaxis 3D ranging from very coarse to
very fine and it has been used medium mesh density in this study as a results of mesh analyses (Figure 3). The
plate anchor has been modelled as a plate element which is in 1.0mx1.0m, 1.0mx2.0m, 1.0mx5.0m and
1.0mx8.0m sizes and 0.12m thickness. The model and geometric parameters used in the analyses are given in
Table 2 and Figure 4, respectively. Table 3 summarizes analysis program with constant and variable parameters
used.

Table 1. HS model parameters used for sand soil

Sand
Material model HS
Drainage type Drained
γunsat (kN/m ) 3
16.0
γsat (kN/m ) 3
18.0
ref 2
E50 (kN/m ) 20000
ref 2
Eoed (kN/m ) 20000
Eurref (kN/m2) 60000
power, m 0.50
2
c (kN/m ) 0.0
Ø (°) 41
ψ (°) 11
v 0.20
2
Pref (kN/m ) 100
Rf 0.90

3
ACE2016

Table 2. Model parameters used for plate anchor

Plate anchor
γ (kN/m3) 77.0
2
E (kN/m ) 2x108
v 0.30
d (m) 0.12

Figure 2. Finite element mesh and plate anchor, Plaxis 3D

Figure 3. Mesh size effect in Plaxis 3D analysis

Figure 4. Geometric parameters of model

Table 3. Numerical analysis program

Series Constant parameters Variable parameters

I L/B= 8 H/B= 3, 7
II L/B= 8 H/B= 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
III H/B= 5 L/B= 1, 2, 5, 8

4
 M. Tolun, B. Emirler, M. Laman

The uplift capacities are often expressed in dimensionless form as breakout factor N qu (Dickin, 1988). The
breakout factor was determined by the following formula:

Tu
N qu  (1)
γBLH

in which;

Nqu : breakout factor

Tu : uplift resistance
γ : soil unit weight
B : anchor width
L : anchor length
H : embedment depth

3 Results

3.1 Comparison Between Results from Plaxis 3D Analyses and Physical Modeling
Comparisons for anchors with embedment ratios of 3 and 7, considered as typical examples for shallow and
fairly deep anchors, are presented in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. In the case of shallow anchors in sand,
considerable divergence arises due to the inability of the Plaxis 3D model selected to account for the significant
post-peak reduction in uplift resistance observed in the experimental work. In the case of deep anchors in sand,
when the results obtained from Plaxis 3D and test have been compared for the uplift resistance, they both
indicates similar behavior.

Figure 5. Comparison between Figure 6. Comparison between

Plaxis 3D and centrifuge data for H/B=3 Plaxis 3D and centrifuge data for H/B=7

3.2 Effect of Embedment Ratio

A series of analyses have been conducted at different embedment ratios on plate strip anchor in order to see the
effect of embedment ratio H/B on the uplift resistance. The graph of the uplift resistance depending on
embedment ratios for plate anchor has been shown in Figure 7. It has been understood from the graph that the
uplift resistance of the plate anchor increases with the increase of embedment ratios (H/B= from 1 to 7). In case
of the aspect ratio of 8, the uplift resistance of plate anchor embedded in H/B=1 is approximately 20 times more
than the uplift resistance of plate anchor embedded in H/B=7. This increase can be explained that thickness of
homogenous zone between plate anchor and soil surface is efficient and the uplift resistance increases with the
increase of thickness of this zone. The breakout factor is a non-dimensional parameter of the uplift resistance and
the graph of breakout factor for embedment ratios (H/B) has been shown in Figure 6. When the results obtained
from Plaxis 3D and experimental work have been compared for the breakout factor for all embedment ratios
(H/B= from 1 to 7), they both indicates similar behavior but Plaxis 3D has breakout factor more than the test
(Figure 8).

5
ACE2016

Figure 7. Effect of embedment ratio Figure 8. Comparison between

on the uplift resistance for L/B=8 Plaxis 3D and centrifuge data for L/B=8

Plaxis 3D has been used to investigate the effect of embedment ratio of plate strip anchor on the displacement.
The displacement contours are presented in Figure 9. The displacement contours intensify around plate with the
increase of embedment ratio and diminish towards the soil surface. The displacement value at the time of
collapse is the same the displacement value reaching the soil surface for embedment ratio of H/B=1. This ratio is
about 5 times for the case of embedment ratio of H/B=7.

H/B=1 H/B=2 H/B=3

H/B=4 H/B=5 H/B=6

H/B=7

Figure 9. Displacement contours for a plate strip anchor (L/B=8)

3.3 Effect of Aspect Ratio

A series of analyses have been conducted at different aspect ratios on plate strip anchor in order to see the effect
of aspect ratio L/B on the uplift resistance. The graph of the uplift resistance depending on aspect ratio for plate
anchor has been shown in Figure 10. It has been understood from the graph that the uplift resistance of the plate
anchor increases with the increase of aspect ratios (L/B= 1, 2, 5 and 8). This increase can be explained that
expansion of failure zone between anchor and soil surface is efficient and the uplift resistance increases with the
increase of expanse of this zone. In the case of the embedment ratio of 5, the uplift resistance of plate anchor for
L/B=8 is approximately 2.5 times more than the uplift resistance of plate anchor for L/B=1. The results obtained
from Plaxis 3D have been considered in terms of the breakout factor for all aspect ratios. It has been showed that
the breakout factor decreases with the increase of aspect ratios (Figure 11). In the case of the embedment ratio of
5, the breakout factor for L/B=1 is approximately 3 times more than the breakout factor for L/B=8.

6
 M. Tolun, B. Emirler, M. Laman

Figure 10. Effect of aspect ratio Figure 11. Effect of aspect ratio
on the uplift resistance for H/B=5 on the breakout factor for H/B=5

Plaxis 3D has been also used to investigate the effect of aspect ratio of plate strip anchor on the displacement.
The displacement contours are presented in Figure 12. The displacement contours expand with the increase of
aspect ratio and intensify towards the soil surface. The displacement value at the time of collapse is
approximately 3 times more than the displacement value reaching the soil surface for aspect ratio of L/B=1. This
ratio is about 2 times for the case of aspect ratio of L/B=8.

L/B=1 L/B=2

L/B=5 L/B=8

Figure 12. Displacement contours for a plate strip anchor (H/B=5)

4 Conclusions
In this study, the uplift resistance of plate strip anchor systems has been investigated in sand. Based on the
results, the following main conclusions can be drawn:

 In the case of shallow anchors (H/B=3) in sand, considerable divergence arises due to the inability of the
Plaxis 3D model selected to account for the significant post-peak reduction in uplift resistance observed in
the experimental work. In the case of deep anchors (H/B=7) in sand, when the results obtained from Plaxis
3D and test have been compared for the uplift resistance, they both indicates similar behavior.
 The uplift resistance for plate strip anchor in sand increases with the increase of anchor embedment ratio. In
case of the aspect ratio of 8, the uplift resistance of plate anchor embedded in H/B=1 is approximately 20
times more than the uplift resistance of plate anchor embedded in H/B=7.
 The displacement contours intensify around plate with the increase of embedment ratio and diminish
towards the soil surface. The displacement value at the time of collapse is the same the displacement value
reaching the soil surface for embedment ratio of H/B=1. This ratio is about 5 times for the case of
embedment ratio of H/B=7.
 The analyses show that the uplift resistance increases with the increase of anchor aspect ratio. In case of the
embedment ratio of 5, the uplift resistance of plate anchor for L/B=8 is approximately 2.5 times more than
the uplift resistance of plate anchor for L/B=1.
 The displacement contours expand with the increase of aspect ratio and intensify towards the soil surface.
The displacement value at the time of collapse is approximately 3 times more than the displacement value

7
ACE2016

reaching the soil surface for aspect ratio of L/B=1. This ratio is about 2 times for the case of aspect ratio of
L/B=8.

Acknowledgements
The second author of this study has been supported by TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research
Council of Turkey) with post graduate scholarship. The second author would like to express her thanks to
TUBITAK support for this.

References
Bhattacharya, P. and Kumar, J. (2016). Uplift resistance of anchors in layered sand using finite-element limit
analysis: Formulation and results. International Journal of Geomechanics, pp. 04015078-1-14.
Deshmukh, V. B., Dewaikar, D. M. and Choudhary, D. (2011). Uplift resistance of horizontal strip anchors in
cohesionless soil. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol. 29, pp. 977-988.
Dickin, E. A. (1988). Uplift behavior of horizontal anchor plates in sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 114, pp. 1300-1317.
Dickin, E. A. and Laman, M. (2007). Uplift response of strip anchors in cohesionless soil. Advances in
Engineering Software, Vol. 38, pp. 618-625.
Liu, J., Liu, M. and Zhu, Z. (2012). Sand deformation around an uplift plate anchor. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 138, pp 728-737.
Murray, E. J. and Geddes, J. D. (1987). Uplift of anchor plates in sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 113, pp. 202-215.
Niroumand, H. and Kassim, K. A. (2014). Experimental and numerical modeling of uplift behavior of
rectangular plates in cohesionless soil. Geomechanics and Engineering, Vol. 6, pp. 314-358.
PLAXIS 3D [Geotechnical finite element software]. Delft, The Netherlands.
Wang, D., Hu, Y. and Randolph, M. F. (2010). Three-dimensional large deformation finite-element analysis of
plate anchors in uniform clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 136, pp.
355-365.