International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1329–1340

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-017-0261-0

RESEARCH PAPER

Critical Tendon Bond Length for Prestressed Ground Anchors in Pullout

Performance Tests Conducted in Sand
Hakki O. Ozhan1 · Erol Guler2

Received: 3 March 2017 / Revised: 25 September 2017 / Accepted: 5 October 2017 / Published online: 13 November 2017
© Iran University of Science and Technology 2017

Abstract
In this study, pullout performance tests were conducted on five prestressed ground anchors having different tendon bond
and unbonded lengths. The tendon bond lengths of the tested anchors varied from 4 to 10 m, whereas the unbonded lengths
were in the range of 8–16 m. The tests were performed separately on a dense, gravelly sandy soil slope with an inclination
of 90° in Cottbus, Germany. The anchors were inclined downwards at an angle of 15° below the horizontal. The results
indicated that three of the five anchors did not satisfy the acceptance criteria as outlined in DIN 4125 Standards. According
to the acceptance criteria, the line that was composed of the elastic displacements of the unbonded length had to remain
between two specific limit lines. Although the elastic displacements of the unbonded tendons were taken into account for
the acceptance of the anchors, the length of the unbonded tendon did not have a significant effect on stability. The anchors
having unbonded lengths of 8, 13, and 15 m failed, whereas the anchors with unbonded length of 9 and 16 m were accepted
after the termination of the performance tests. However, the tendon bond length was proved to be an important parameter
that contributed to the acceptance of the tested anchors. Test results indicated that anchors having tendon bond lengths longer
or shorter than 6 m were rejected.

Keywords  Anchor tendon coefficient · Performance test · Prestressed ground anchor · Tendon bond length · Unbonded
length

1 Introduction walls, slopes, dams, bridges, and foundations or to resist

Ground anchors offer economical solutions to temporary or
permanent stability problems. The service life of a ground
anchor used for a temporary application usually varies from
2 to 5 years depending on the duration of the construction
project, whereas permanent ground anchors are used for
the whole life of the permanent structure [1]. Designed to
withstand lateral and uplift forces, the ground anchors are
temporarily used as a part of deep excavation support sys-
tems or permanently used to strengthen and protect retaining
* Hakki O. Ozhan
hakki.ozhan@altinbas.edu.tr
Erol Guler
eguler@boun.edu.tr
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Altinbas University,
Mahmutbey Dilmenler Cad. No: 26 Bagcilar, Istanbul,
Turkey
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Bogazici University,
Bebek, 34342 Istanbul, Turkey
wind-produced uplift forces [2–4]. Moreover, the ground
anchors are used for stabilization of landslides and resistance
of overturning by reducing the horizontal displacements
of the structures [2]. Ground anchors are also preferred to
braced systems to expand the working space and to increase
the efficiency of construction. Therefore, anchors reduce
construction time and cost [5].
In practice, ground anchors can generally be classified
into two main groups: prestressed anchors that are formed
by tensioning the anchors and passive anchors that are unten-
sioned and mobilized with the displacement of the retained
structure. A prestressed ground anchor is a structural ele-
ment embedded in grout filled drill holes and is used to
transmit an applied tensile load into the ground. In general,
the anchor is prestressed to protect the soil against tensile
overloads [6]. The decision of whether to use prestressed
anchors or passive anchors depends on several factors such
as the level of displacements of the anchor, the nature of the
rock in which the anchor is to be embedded and the risk of
corrosion [7]. Main advantages of using a prestressed anchor

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

1330
instead of a passive anchor are the significant reduction in
the displacements of the anchor due to the application of
a prestress load, and the transfer of a permanent stabiliz-
ing force on the surrounding ground due to prestressing and
monitoring the performance of the anchor during prestress-
ing [7]. Many structures deliver significant tension loads to
the foundations. In such cases, prestressed anchors are used
between the structures and the foundations to transfer the
tension loads [8–11].
Besides the usage of prestressed ground anchors in soils,
prestressed anchor tendons might also be installed in struc-
tural members made of concrete. The use of prestressed steel
strands as the tensional reinforcement in concrete T-beams
has demonstrably improved the mechanical properties of the
structural members [12].
Prestressed ground anchors are also preferred for hydrau-
lic purposes. Prestressed anchor cables with a tensile
strength capacity of 1395 MPa were used as a part of the
composite lining system in shield tunnels for water convey-
ance [13].
A typical prestressed ground anchor is composed of
anchorage, unbonded length, and tendon bond length, as
shown in Fig. 1 [2]. The anchorage is formed by the com-
bination of the anchor head, bearing plate, and trumpet that
transmits the prestressing force from the prestressing steel
(bar or strand) to the ground or the supported structure.
The unbonded length is the prestressing steel that is free to
elongate elastically and transfer the resisting force from the
tendon bond length to the structure. During anchorage test-
ing, the elastic displacements are measured at the unbonded
length of an anchor that is not bonded to the grout or soil
[2]. The tendon bond length is the prestressing steel that
is bonded to the grout and is capable of transmitting the
applied tensile load into the ground [14].
Fig. 1  Components of a prestressed ground anchor [2]
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1329–1340
The tendon includes the prestressing steel element
(strands or bars), corrosion protection, and sheath. The
sheath is a tube that protects the prestressing steel in the
unbonded length from corrosion. The grout is a Portland
cement-based mixture that provides both load transfer from
the tendon to the ground and corrosion protection for the
tendon [14].
Anchorage of structures and stabilization of slopes
require the use of tendons made of prestressed strands or
bars with a high yield point. Bars composed of low-quality
steel are suitable only for short anchors with a short service
life, such as those used in securing rock surfaces in small
underground excavations or in applications where prestress-
ing is not preferred. The use of strands instead of bars has
become popular in spite of their greater cost. When a tendon
composed of prestressed strands is used, there is less danger
of prestressing loss as a result of ground creep when com-
pared to a tendon composed of prestressed bars [15].
The minimum tendon bond length has to be taken as 3 m
to enable the tendon bond length to be located beyond the
potential active zone [1, 2]. The unbonded length has to
be taken as greater than 3 m for bar tendons and 4.5 m for
strand tendons to avoid unacceptable load reductions due to
seating losses during load transfer and prestress losses due to
creep in the prestressed tendon of the anchor or the soil [2].
Hsu and Chang (2007) performed pullout tests on vertical
anchors embedded in a gravelly soil layer [5]. According to
the results, the ultimate load of an anchor increased from
215 to 883 kN as the tendon bond length increased from
1.5 to 5.82 m. Briaud et al. [16] also conducted pullout and
creep tests on prestressed anchors with tendon bond lengths
of 4.6 and 9.2 m, respectively, embedded in stiff clay. Results
indicated that anchors with shorter tendon bond length had
higher ultimate strength and lower creep rate. Moreover,
anchors with shorter tendon bond length transferred the load
further away from the structure [16].
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) anchors with tendon
bond strengths in the range of 10–15 MPa are used to pro-
vide higher pullout capacities. Ozbakkaloglu and Saatcioglu
[17] performed pullout tests on FRP anchors with diameters
of 12.7, 15.9, and 19.1 mm, embedment lengths differing
from 25 to 100 mm, and angle of inclination varying from
15° to 45°. According to the results, tendon bond strength
decreased with increasing embedment length, anchor diam-
eter, and angle of inclination [17]. Zhang et al. [18] also
performed pullout tests on several FRP prestressed ground
anchors. The results indicated that all the tested anchors with
1-m tendon bond length had acceptable tensile and creeping
behavior that controlled the long-term tensile capacity of the
tested anchors. Furthermore, more than 0.45-m increase in
tendon bond length appeared to have negligible effect on the
tensile capacity of the anchors [18].
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1329–1340 1331
Vukotic et al. [19] conducted pullout tests on single bore
multiple anchors (SBMA) to investigate the contribution
of tendon bond length to the pullout capacity of the tested
anchor. SBMA were cement pressure grouted anchors pro-
duced by prestressing the strand tendons that were embed-
ded in a single borehole in soil or rock. These anchors had
sufficient short unit anchor lengths to cause a reduction in
debonding. The results indicated that tendon bond lengths
longer than 10 m did not improve the pullout capacity sig-
nificantly [19].
Before being put into service in the field, the ground
anchors have to be loaded up to a limited level and the load/
deformation behavior has to be determined by conduct-
ing performance tests, proof tests, or extended creep tests
[1]. All these tests are performed by considering excessive
deformations due to anchor loading. The ground anchors are
subjected to incremental loading and unloading sequences in
performance tests where the deformations of the anchors are
recorded [20]. The acceptance criteria for performance tests
are based on allowable elastic movements of the unbonded
length and creep of the anchor. After acceptance, the anchor
is loaded up to a critical value and then locked-off [1].
The objective of this study was to investigate the effects
on stability of both tendon bond length and unbonded length
of the prestressed ground anchors that were embedded in
dense sand. For this reason, pullout performance tests were
performed on five prestressed ground anchors in accordance
with DIN 4125, by applying loading and unloading cycles
that were in the range of 100–750 kN. In these tests, elas-
tic and plastic displacements of the unbonded tendons were
measured, and load–displacement behaviors of the anchors
were obtained. The tendon bond lengths of the five tested
anchors were 6, 6, 10, 4, and 8 m, respectively, while these
anchors had unbonded lengths of 9, 16, 15, 13, and 8 m.
2 Experimental Program
2.1 Material Properties
The engineering properties of the soil in which the anchors
were embedded are listed in Table 1. The tests were per-
formed in compliance with DIN 4125 [21]. The anchors that
were used in this project were post-grouted ground anchors
consisting of strand tendons and high-pressure grouted
boreholes. The rotary method was chosen for drilling with
a roller bit and a thick flush that was convenient for sand.
The boreholes with diameters of 140 mm were long enough
to accommodate the tendons. Each test had two injection
phases where post-grouting took place during the second
injection phase. Applied grout injection pressures were
taken as greater than 1 MPa during all injection phases.
Table 1  Engineering properties of the soil in which the anchors were
installed in
Type Slope Unit Internal Standard Anchor
inclina- weight frictional penetra- inclina-
tion (°) (kN/m3) angle (°) tion test tion below
(SPT) horizontal
value (°)
Gravelly 90 20 40 48 15
dense
sand
Additional grout was injected under high pressure into the
initial grout, which caused an enlargement in the grout body.
Engineering parameters relating to the tested anchors
and the segmental anchor lengths are listed in Table 2. Four
strands each with seven multiple-wire strand tendons were
used in each test. Jacking over length of an anchor was the
part of the tendon that was not stressed. This length was
measured as the distance between the anchor head and
the concrete bearing plate where the hydraulic jack was
installed. As can be seen in Table 2, overall lengths of the
anchors differed from 17 to 27 m, while the tendon bond
lengths were in the range of 4–10 m.
2.2 Test Procedure
First, the alignment load of about 10% of the tendon yield
strength was applied. Then, the load was increased, respec-
tively, in the range of 50–75–100–125–150% of the design
load to determine the residual displacements. A design load
of 500 kN was applied in all of the anchor tests [21].
The factor of safety was defined as the ratio of the ulti-
mate capacity to the working load, and it was usually taken
as 1.5 and 1.3 for permanent and temporary usages, respec-
tively [1, 20]. The maximum test load for a permanent
ground anchor had to be applied as 1.5 times of the design
load based on at rest earth pressure assumption. According
to this statement, the ultimate load, named as the planned
testing force, was calculated as 750 kN. For cohesionless
soils, each load increment was maintained for a period of
15 min to 2 h.
A hydraulic jack was used to stress the anchors as
shown in Fig. 2. Wooden blocks were placed between the
hydraulic jack and the concrete bearing plates to level the
clamping of the anchor tendon and the hydraulic jack.
Afterwards, the displacements of the unbonded tendon
were measured using a dial gauge fixed to a tripod, as
shown in Fig. 3. First, stressing the tendon was maintained
by applying the alignment load that was taken as 100 kN,
and then, the anchor was loaded up to 250 kN [21]. There
was an observation period of 15 min to measure the total
movements of the unbonded tendon in the 1st, 2nd, 5th,
13

1332 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1329–1340

Overall anchor
length (mm)

19,000
18,000
17,000
24,000
27,000
Jacking over
length (mm)

2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
length (mm)
Unbonded

16,000
15,000
13,000
8000
9000
Tendon bond
length (mm)

Fig. 2  Hydraulic jack used for stressing an anchor

10,000
6000
6000

4000
8000
Total tendon
area ­(mm2)

560
560
560
560
560
Tendon area per
strand ­(mm2)

140
140
140
140
140
Table 2  Engineering parameters and anchor lengths of the prestressed ground anchors
Elasticity modu- Number of
strands

4
4
4
4
4
lus (N/mm2)

Fig. 3  Dial gauge used for measuring the displacements of the tendon

190,600
190,600
191,900
191,900
191,900

10th, and 15th minutes as outlined in DIN 4125. Then, the

tendon was unloaded down to the alignment load and the
Factor of

plastic (residual) displacement of the unbonded tendon

safety

was measured. The difference between the total movement

1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

measured on 15th minutes and the residual displacement

was taken as the elastic displacement. The tendon was
load (kN)
Design

loaded up to 375 kN and the total displacements of the

500
500
500
500
500

unbonded tendon were measured in the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th,

and 15th minutes. Then, the tendon was unloaded down
to 100 kN and the plastic and elastic displacements of
Alignment
load (kN)

the unbonded tendon were measured again. This proce-

100
100
100
100
100

dure was pursued by performing reloading and unloading

cycles until the planned testing force; 750 kN was reached.
However, the observation period was taken as 60 min by
Anchor-5
Anchor-1
Anchor-2
Anchor-3
Anchor-4

taking readings in the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th, 15th, 30th, 45th,
and 60th minutes for 500 and 625 kN and 120 min by

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1329–1340 1333

taking readings in the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th, 15th, 30th, 45th, the strands, lt was the tendon bond length (mm), lf was the
60th, 90th, and 120th minutes for 750 kN [21]. Subse- unbonded length (mm), and lj was the jacking over length
quently, the tendon was unloaded down to the alignment (mm) of the tested anchor.
load, and the final residual and temporary displacements As can be seen in Figs. 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b, and 8b, limit line b
of the tendon were measured. Elastic displacements for was taken as the lower limit line of the elastic displacements,
500 and 625 kN were measured by subtracting the plastic and according to DIN 4125, b was calculated as follows:
displacements from the total displacements measured in Fi − Fa
the 60th minute of the reloading cycle. However, the total b = 0.8 (l + l ). (2)
E × As f j
displacement readings were taken in the 120th minute of
the reloading cycle to calculate the elastic displacement Theoretical line c was the imaginary elastic extension line
for 750 kN [21]. and it was located between limit lines a and b, as shown in
As shown in Figs. 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b, and 8b, limit line a Figs. 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b, and 8b. Comparison between the elastic
was taken as the upper limit line of the elastic displace- displacements of the unbonded tendon was made by also
ments and according to DIN 4125, a was calculated as taking the theoretical line c into consideration. The elastic
follows: displacements had to be located not far away from line c.
Fi − Fa
(
lt
) According to DIN 4125, c was calculated as follows:
a= l +l + , (1)
E × As f j 2 Fi − Fa
c= (l + l ). (3)
E × As f j
where Fi (kN) was the working load, Fa (kN) was the align-
ment load, E was the elasticity modulus (N/mm2) of the R and S points were two specific points located on
tendon steel, As ­(mm2) was the total tendon surface area of load–displacement graphs where the x axis consisted of

(a) Load (kN) (b) 100

Elastic Displacements
50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850
Plastic Displacements
0 90 Limit Line a
Displacement of unbonded tendon after each unloading cycle (mm)

Limit Line b
Theoretical Line c
80
10

70
Displacement of unbonded tendon (mm)

20
60

30
50
S

40 40

30
50

20
60
10

70 R Load (kN)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

80 -10

-20

Fig. 4  a Loading–unloading–reloading phases for Anchor-1; b elastic and plastic displacements of unbonded tendon for Anchor-1

13

1334 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1329–1340

(a) Load (kN) (b) 130

50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 Elastic Displacements
0 120 Plastic Displacements
Limit Line a
10 110 Limit Line b
Theoretical Line c

Displacement of unbonded tendon after each unloading cycle (mm)

20 100

30 90
Displacement of unbonded tendon (mm)

40
80
S
50
70

60
60

70
50

80
40

90
30

100
20
110
10
120 R Load (kN)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
130
-10

-20

Fig. 5  a Loading–unloading–reloading phases for Anchor-2; b elastic and plastic displacements of unbonded tendon for Anchor-2

force values and the y axis consisted of displacement values,
as shown in Figs. 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b, and 8b. According to DIN
4125, point R was located on the load axis and point S was
the intersection of the line passing through R and S points
and the lower limit line b. The line that passed through R
and S points could be taken as the minimum limit line for the
elastic displacements. R (x, y) and S (x, y) were calculated
as follows:
R(x, y) = (0.15 × FS × Fd + Fa , 0) = (212.5, 0)
l f + lj
( )
S(x, y) = 0.75 × FS × Fd + Fa , 0.6 × FS × Fd , limit line a and limit line b to decide that the anchor would
E × As
(5)
where Fd (kN) was the design load and FS was the factor of
safety. As given in Eq. 4, point R was zero on the displace-
ment axis which means that it was located on the load axis
with the value of 212.5. As given in Eq. 5, point S had the
value of 662.5 on the load axis.
The plastic displacements were the residual deforma-
tions of the unbonded part of the anchor tendon and these
displacements were measured by a dial gauge that was
located at the anchor head. Plastic displacements were cal-
culated by subtracting the deformations measured when
the tendon was unloaded down to the alignment load from
the deformations measured when the tendon was loaded or
reloaded up to the desired value. On the other hand, the
elastic displacements were the temporary deformations of
the unbonded part of the anchor tendon.
Elastic and plastic displacements of the unbonded tendon
(4) were measured during and at the end of the tests. The loca-
tions of the elastic displacements had to remain between
be put into service: otherwise, the anchor would be rejected
[21].
Elongation of the bonded tendon, named as creep, was
considered to be significant when an anchor was tested in a
cohesive soil. The anchors tested in this study were embed-
ded in dense sand; and for this reason, creep of the anchors
was not taken into consideration.
The acceptance or rejection of the anchors was deter-
mined based on the allowable elastic displacements of the

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1329–1340 1335

(a) Load (kN) (b) 140

50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 Elastic Displacements
0 130 Plastic Displacements
Limit Line a
120 Limit Line b
Theoretical Line c

Displacement of unbonded tendon after each unloading cycle (mm)

10 110

100
20
90
Displacement of unbonded tendon (mm)

80
30
70 S

40 60

50

50 40

30
60
20

10
70 Load (kN)
R
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
80 -10

-20

Fig. 6  a Loading–unloading–reloading phases for Anchor-3; b elastic and plastic displacements of unbonded tendon for Anchor-3

unbonded tendon [21]. If an elastic displacement value were located between limit lines a and b, which resulted
was located outside the limit lines a and b and the line that in the acceptance of both Anchor-1 and Anchor-2. How-
passed through points R and S, it would be concluded that ever, the elastic displacement lines for both Anchor-3 and
the related anchor lengths did not satisfy the acceptance Anchor-5 were not located between limit lines a and b as
criteria. However, all of the elastic displacements could be shown in Figs. 6b and 8b. Most of the portions of the elastic
located below the lower limit line b and above the line that displacement lines were below the lower limit line b and
passed through points R and S. In this case, the anchor was the lines that passed through points R and S. According to
neither accepted nor rejected; but further anchor tests such these results, both Anchor-3 and Anchor-5 were rejected and
as proof tests or extended creep tests, which were out of they could not be put into service. As can be seen in Fig. 7b,
the scope of this study, had to be performed on that anchor. Anchor-4 was also rejected due to the fact that the elastic
Although not used for anchor acceptance, plastic displace- displacement line was located above the upper limit line a;
ment was an indicator of the stress–strain behavior of the but not between limit lines a and b.
ground–grout bond of the anchor [2]. When an anchor was The elastic and plastic displacements of the unbonded
accepted after the termination of the performance test, then, tendon measured after each unloading cycle for each tested
this anchor could be put into service. anchor are listed in Table 3. The maximum elastic displace-
ment of an accepted anchor (Anchor-1) was measured almost
the same as that of a rejected anchor (Anchor-3). As listed
3 Test Results and Discussion in Table 3, Anchor-1 had a maximum elastic displacement
of 62.96 mm, whereas the maximum elastic displacement
Figures 4a, 5a, 6a, 7a, 8a show the load–displacement behav- of Anchor-3 was measured as 63.34 mm. Similar results
ior of the tested prestressed ground anchors in the field. As were obtained for another accepted anchor (Anchor-2) and
can be seen in Figs. 4b and 5b, the elastic displacement lines a rejected anchor (Anchor-4). The elastic displacement

13

1336 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1329–1340

(a) Load (kN) (b) 120

50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 Elastic Displacements
0 110 Plastic Displacements
Limit Line a
10 Limit Line b
100

Displacement of unbonded tendon after each unloading cycle (mm)

Theoretical Line c
20
90
30
Displacement of unbonded tendon (mm)

80
40

50 70

S
60 60

70 50

80
40
90
30
100
20
110

10
120
R
Load (kN)
130 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
140 -10

-20

Fig. 7  a Loading–unloading–reloading phases for Anchor-4; b elastic and plastic displacements of unbonded tendon for Anchor-4

of Anchor-2 and Anchor-4 was measured as 110.73 and Based upon the results of the performance tests in this
116.08 mm, respectively, as can be seen in Table 3. These study, three out of five anchors did not satisfy the accept-
results indicated that a correlation between the elastic dis- ance criteria. Although all of the anchors were produced
placements of the unbonded tendons and the acceptance under strict quality control measures, field tests proved
criteria could not be established. that some of these anchors still had problems. Hence, it
The plastic displacements for all the tested anchors varied can be concluded that every single anchor must be sub-
almost linearly during the performance tests and the maxi- jected to a field performance test to decide whether the
mum displacements obtained at 750 kN were in the range anchor satisfies the acceptance criteria or not, before being
of 10.89–16.31 mm as listed in Table 3. Due to the linear put into service.
variation of the plastic displacements, it might be concluded As listed in Table 4, both Anchor-1 and Anchor-2 had a
that creeping of the tendon did not occur. These displace- tendon bond length of 6 m, although there was a significant
ment values were found to be higher than those obtained in difference between their unbonded lengths. The unbonded
pullout tests conducted on prestressed ground anchors that length of Anchor-1 was 9 m, whereas that of Anchor-2 was
were embedded in a rock [22]. According to the results of 16 m.
the pullout tests performed by Ren et al. [22], the maxi- Like the comparison between Anchor-1 and Anchor-2,
mum plastic displacement was measured as approximately Anchor-3 and Anchor-5 also had significantly different
1.25 mm at a load of 300 kN [22]. Obtaining higher perma- unbonded lengths when compared to each other. Anchor-3
nent deformations for the anchors tested in dense sand could had an unbonded length of 15 m, whereas the unbonded
be attributed to the lower elasticity modulus and internal length of Anchor-5 was 8 m. However, the tendon bond
frictional angle of the sand when compared to those of the lengths of these two anchors were greater than those of
rock. Anchor-1 and Anchor-2. Anchor-3 had a tendon bond length

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1329–1340 1337

(a) Load (kN) (b) 90

50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850
Elastic Displacements
0
Plastic Displacements
80
Limit Line a
Limit Line b

Displacement of unbonded tendon after each unloading cycle (mm)

70 Theoretical Line c

10

60
Displacement of unbonded tendon (mm)

50
20
S
40

30
30

20

40 10

Load (kN)
R
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

50 -10

-20

Fig. 8  a Loading–unloading–reloading phases for Anchor-5; b elastic and plastic displacements of unbonded tendon for Anchor-5

of 10 m, whereas the tendon bond length of Anchor-5 was

8 m as listed in Table 4.
According to these results, a correlation between ten-
Table 3  Elastic and plastic displacements measured at the applied don bond length and elastic displacements of the unbonded
loads tendon could be established. For the anchors with tendon
Applied load (kN) 250 375 500 625 750 bond lengths greater than 6 m, elastic displacements were
measured below limit line b. Measuring temporary deforma-
Anchor-1
tions below limit line b might be attributed to the insufficient
 Elastic displacement (mm) 12.38 24.12 38.83 49.23 62.96
attachment of the unbonded tendon to the soil. Because of
 Plastic displacement (mm) 5.1 6.86 9.39 12.77 13.92
this, the unbonded tendon could not transfer the resisting
Anchor-2
force from the tendon bond length to the structure.
 Elastic displacement (mm) 26.76 48.06 69.27 89.88 110.73
It was stated that horizontal tensile stresses that were
 Plastic displacement (mm) 3 4.81 8.79 14.75 16.31
located around the unbonded tendon of ground anchors
Anchor-3
embedded in a rock could cause microcracking of the rock
 Elastic displacement (mm) 14.22 25.18 41.11 56.38 63.34
surface. Moreover, shear stress developing around the
 Plastic displacement (mm) 3.22 5.34 8.34 11.13 12.05
unbonded tendon could result in shear failure of the rock
Anchor-4
[23]. These results indicated that critical stresses developing
 Elastic displacement (mm) 24.72 49.88 73.65 89.92 116.08
around the unbonded tendon of an anchor in a rock could
 Plastic displacement (mm) 5.23 7.19 9.9 13.15 14.21
cause failure of the anchor.
Anchor-5
Anchor-4 was another anchor that was rejected and
 Elastic displacement (mm) 8.39 12.73 17.56 28.88 37.93
could not be put into service due to the fact that the elas-
 Plastic displacement (mm) 3.51 5.1 6.92 8.23 10.89
tic displacement line of this anchor was located above

13

1338
Table 4  Correlation between Tendon bond Unbonded
anchor lengths and acceptance length, lt length, lf
in performance tests (mm) (mm)
Anchor-1 6000 9000
Anchor-2 6000 16,000
Anchor-3 10,000 15,000
Anchor-4 4000 13,000
Anchor-5 8000 8000
the upper limit line a. Tendon bond length and unbonded
length of Anchor-4 were 4 and 13 m, respectively.
Based upon this result, a correlation between tendon
bond length and elastic displacements of the unbonded
tendon could also be established. For the anchors with
tendon bond lengths under 6 m, the elastic displacements
were located above limit line a. These excessive displace-
ments might have been the result of the mobilization of
the shear and horizontal tensile stresses in dense sand
around the unbonded tendon. Due to these stresses, cracks
that could result in the failure of the structure might have
occurred in the soil [23].
A coefficient that was derived by dividing the tendon
bond length by the unbonded length was used to inves-
tigate the effect of bonded and unbonded portions of an
anchor on the acceptance criteria. This coefficient (ct) was
named as anchor tendon coefficient:
lt
ct = , (6)
lf
where ct value for Anchor-1, Anchor-2, Anchor-3, Anchor-4,
and Anchor-5 was calculated as 0.67, 0.38, 0.67, 0.31, and
1, respectively, as listed in Table 4. Based upon this result,
a logical correlation could not be established between c t
values and the acceptance criteria for the tested anchors.
For example, ct for an accepted anchor (Anchor-1) and for
a rejected anchor (Anchor-3) was the same as 0.67. On the
other hand, ­ct for a rejected anchor (Anchor-4) was lower
than 0.67, whereas ­ct for another rejected anchor (Anchor-5)
was higher than 0.67 as listed in Table 4. These results indi-
cated that evaluation of tendon bond length and unbonded
length together did not have any significant effect on the
acceptance criteria for the tested anchors, although the limit
lines for determining the acceptance of the anchors were
mostly related to the unbonded length rather than the tendon
bond length. As can be seen in Table 4, there was no correla-
tion either between the unbonded length of the anchors and
the acceptance criteria. The range of the unbonded length for
the rejected anchors differed from 8 to 15 m, whereas that for
the accepted anchors was from 9 to 16 m. According to the
results of the performance test as listed in Table 4, the most
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1329–1340
Anchor Maximum elastic displace- Acceptance in
tendon coef- ment of the unbonded tendon performance
ficient, ct (mm) test
0.67 62.96 Yes
0.38 110.73 Yes
0.67 63.34 No
0.31 116.08 No
1 37.93 No
important correlation that could be established between the
anchor lengths and anchor acceptance was the tendon bond
length. Furthermore, a correlation between ct and the maxi-
mum elastic displacements of the unbonded tendon could
also be established. As ct increased, the elastic displace-
ments decreased.
Actually, a range for the tendon bond length could not
be established due to the test results. The only tendon bond
length value that resulted in acceptance of the anchors was
6 m. Anchor-4 was rejected with a tendon bond length of
4 m. However, Briaud et al. (1998) stated that anchors hav-
ing 4.6 m tendon bond length that were embedded in stiff
clay performed better than anchors having 9.2 m tendon
bond length in terms of stability [16].
On the other hand, Littlejohn (1980) stated that a pre-
stressed ground anchor with a tendon bond length of 6 m
that was embedded in gravelly dense sand had an ultimate
load carrying capacity of almost 825 kN [24]. In our study,
Anchor-1 and Anchor-2 also had a tendon bond length of
6 m. They were embedded in dense sand and they with-
stood a load of 750 kN, which was smaller than the ultimate
capacity value indicated by Littlejohn (1980). However,
an increase in tendon bond length up to 9 m caused only
a slight increase in the ultimate load carrying capacity of
the anchor. The maximum load that the anchor withstood
was measured as approximately 1000 kN, and then, even
a slight increase in tendon bond length did not cause any
further increase in load carrying capacity [24]. According to
the results of the theoretical study performed by Littlejohn
(1980), using tendon bond lengths greater than 6.7 m did
not improve the load carrying capacity of the prestressed
ground anchor embedded in a dense soil having an SPT
value of 50. Furthermore, permanent displacement of an
anchor having a tendon bond length of 6.7 m was found to
be approximately 15 mm at a load of 750 kN [24]. Some
of the results obtained from our study were consistent with
this result. The plastic displacements measured from the two
anchors (Anchor-1 and Anchor-2) with tendon bond lengths
of 6 m that were embedded in dense sand having an SPT
value of 48, were 13.92 and 16.31 mm, respectively, at a
load of 750 kN. Moreover, the anchors with tendon bond
lengths greater than 6 m (Anchor-3 and Anchor-5), were
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1329–1340 1339
rejected and it could be concluded that these anchors did not
show any improvement in terms of load carrying capacity,
as also stated by Littlejohn [24].
According to the results shown in Table 4, a reduction in
bond length obviously reduced the pullout resistance and,
therefore, reduced the stability of the anchor. Due to the ten-
don bond length smaller than 6 m, the grouted tendon could
not transmit the tensile stresses to the soil properly, which
might have resulted in the failure of the anchor. However,
the result of the performance tests indicated that an increase
in bonded length also caused a reduction in stability. Based
upon the test results, the tendon bond length had to be taken
as 6 m to provide the pullout resistance of the tested anchor.
As stated by Littlejohn [24], vertical tensile stresses mobi-
lized in the soil around the tendon bond length might have
been the reason for the insufficient elastic displacements
measured from Anchor-3 and Anchor-5. Due to an increase
in tendon bond length, the vertical tensile stresses might
have increased and afterwards, cracks could occur in the soil
and the anchor could fail.
According to the results, the prestressed steel section of
the anchor that transferred the applied load to the ground
should be manufactured with a critical length of 6 m to meet
the acceptance criteria for the anchor [12]. Based upon the
results, the elastic deformations of the unbonded tendon did
not play a significant role on the stability of the anchor.
It might be concluded that the temporary deformations
in the tendon of an anchor could be tolerated. However,
the length of the grouted section of an anchor should be
no longer than the critical value, 6 m, although the tendon
bond length was embedded behind a possible failure surface
in the ground.
4 Conclusions
Pullout performance tests were performed on five pre-
stressed ground anchors in the field. Three of the tested
anchors did not satisfy the acceptance criteria. The accepted
anchors could be put into service in the field. However, the
rejected anchors could cause stability problems and must not
be used in the field.
The results indicated that unbonded length of the tested
anchors did not play a significant role on the acceptance
criteria in terms of stability. The anchors with an unbonded
length of 9 and 16 m could be put into service, whereas the
anchors with an unbonded length of 15, 13, and 8 m were
rejected.
According to the results, tendon bond length of the tested
anchors was found to be a significant parameter in terms
of stability. The critical length of the tendon bond was
measured as 6 m. Anchors tested with tendon bond lengths
greater or smaller than 6 m were rejected. The anchors that
could not be put into service had tendon bond lengths of 10,
4, and 8 m, respectively.
Anchor tendon coefficient (ct) was expressed as the ratio
of the tendon bond length to the unbonded length. As ct
increased, the elastic displacements of the unbonded tendon
decreased. However, no correlation was established between
­ct and acceptance criteria.
As outlined in DIN 4125, when the tendon bond length
was greater than 6 m, the elastic displacements were insuf-
ficient and located below limit line b. Contrarily, when the
tendon bond length was smaller than 6 m, the elastic dis-
placements were excessive and located above limit line a.
In conclusion, it might be stated that first, the location of
a prestressed ground anchor had to be determined where the
bonded section of an anchor had to be embedded beyond a
failure surface in the ground. After this condition was sat-
isfied, the length of the tendon bond had to be strictly fol-
lowed as 6 m in the field. According to the results, a tendon
bond length greater than 6 m could be unbeneficial in terms
of both stability and cost. Using a tendon bond length of
6 m would be the optimum solution for prestressed ground
anchors embedded in dense sand by considering the location
of elastic displacements of the unbonded tendon as outlined
in DIN 4125.
However, the number of the anchors on which perfor-
mance tests were conducted might be increased to evaluate
the detailed effects of tendon bond length and unbonded
length on the stability of the tested anchor. Additional field
tests, such as proof tests or extended creep tests, might also
be performed on the rejected anchors to decide whether they
would be put into service or not.
Acknowledgements  The authors sincerely thank Prof. Dr. Lutz
Wichter from Geotechnical Engineering Department of Brandenburg
Technical University for providing the prestressed ground anchors and
the equipment for conducting the pullout performance tests.
References
1. Newton BJ (2012) Earth retaining systems using ground anchors,
memo to designers 5–12. Caltrans Engineering Manuals, p 25
2. Sabatini PJ, Pass DG, Bachus RC (1999) Geotechnical engineer-
ing circular no. 4—ground anchors and anchored systems. Fed-
eral Highway Administration FHWA- IF-99-015, Washington DC,
p 281
3. Hinks JL, Burton IW, Peacock AR, Gosschalk EM (1990) Post-
tensioning Mullardoch Dam in Scotland. Water Power & Dam
Constr 42(11):12–15
4. Bruce DA (1993) The stabilization of concrete dams by post-
tensioned rock anchorages: the state of American practice.
Anderson LR (ed) Geotechnical specifications publication, no.
35, geotechnical practice in dam rehabilitation. ASCE, New York,
pp 320–332
5. Hsu SC, Chang CM (2007) Pullout performance of vertical
anchors in gravel formation. Eng Geol 90(1–2):17–29
13

1340
6. Gerwick BC (2008) Construction of prestressed concrete. In:
Nawy EG (ed) Concrete construction engineering handbook, vol
11. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–62
7. Benmokrane B, Chekired M, Xu H, Ballivy G (1995) Behavior of
grouted anchors subjected to repeated loadings in field. J Geotech
Eng ASCE 121(5):413–420
8. Ostermayer H (1975) Construction, carrying behaviour and creep
characteristics of ground anchors. Proceedings of Institution of
Civil Engineers, London, pp 141–151
9. Hobst L, Zajic J (1977) Anchoring in rock. Developments in geo-
technical engineering, 13. Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam
10. Hanna TH (1982) Foundations in tension: ground anchors (series
on rock and soil mechanics). Trans Tech Publications, McGraw-
Hill, New York
11. Schnabel H Jr (1982) Tiebacks in foundation engineering and
construction. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York
12. Cao G, Zhang W, Hu J, Zhang K (2017) Experimental study
on the long-term behaviour of RBPC t-beams. Int J Civ Eng.
doi:10.1007/s40999-017-0227-2
13. Yang F, Cao S, Qin G (2017) Performance of the prestressed com-
posite lining of a tunnel: case study of the Yellow River crossing
tunnel. Int J Civ Eng. doi:10.1007/s40999-016-0124-0
14. Wichter L, Meininger W (2000) Verankerungen und vernage-
lungen im grundbau (anchors and soil nails in geotechnical con-
structions), 1st edn. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, p 215
15. Ozhan HO (2004) The effect of tendon bond length of prestressed
ground anchors to the stability of anchored retaining systems. M.
Sc. Thesis, Bogazici University, Istanbul, p 184
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 16:1329–1340
16. Briaud JL, Powers WF, Weatherby DE (1998) Should grouted
anchors have short tendon bond length? J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng ASCE 124(2):110–118
17. Ozbakkaloglu T, Saatcioglu M (2009) Tensile behavior of FRP
anchors in concrete. J Compos Constr ASCE 13(2):82–92
18. Zhang B, Benmokrane B, Chennouf A, Mukhopadhyaya P, El-
Safty A (2001) Tensile behavior of FRP tendons for prestressed
ground anchors. J Compos Constr ASCE 5(2):85–93
19. Vukotic G, Galindo JG, Soriano A (2013) The influence of bond
stress distribution on ground anchor fixed length design. Field
trial results and proposal for design methodology. In: Proceed-
ings of the 18th international conference on soil mechanics and
geotechnical engineering, Paris, pp 2119–2122
20. OPSS 942 (2009) Construction specification for prestressed soil
and rock anchors. Ontario provincial standard specification, p 26
21. DIN 4125 (1990) Ground anchorages; temporary and permanent
anchorages; design, construction and testing, Deutsches Institut
für Normung
22. Ren FF, Yang ZJ, Chen JF, Chen WW (2010) An analytical analy-
sis of the full-range behaviour of grouted rockbolts based on a
tri-linear bond-slip model. Constr Build Mater 24(3):361–370
23. Showkati A, Maarefvand P, Hassani H (2016) An analytical solu-
tion for stresses induced by a post-tensioned anchor in rocks con-
taining two perpendicular joint sets. Acta Geotech 11:415–432
24. Littlejohn GS (1980) Design estimation of the ultimate load-hold-
ing capacity of ground anchors. Ground Eng Found Publ, Essex,
pp 25–39