Bruce, Gómez and Traylor, 1

Repeated Lift-off Testing of Single Bore Multiple

Anchors for Dam Retaining Wall over a 5-Year
Period

Mary Ellen C. Bruce, P.E., geotechnica, s.a., Inc., Venetia, PA, USA
Jesús Gómez, Ph.D., P.E., Schnabel Engineering, West Chester, PA, USA
Robert P. Traylor, Traylor LLC, Ellicott City, MD, USA

Abstract
The right downstream retaining wall of Hodenpyl Dam in Michigan underwent significant
lateral displacement due to global instability of the in situ soils. After a failed remediation
attempt with traditional tiebacks in 1996, a remediation effort was implemented in 2002 to limit
the rate of movement of the wall while additional studies were conducted. The remediation
design called for installation of additional anchors bonded within a high plasticity, stiff clay
layer. The length of the bond zone of the anchors was limited by the presence of an artesian
aquifer underlying the clay layer; therefore, the design unit bond stress was relatively large. To
reduce the potential for creep and increase the unit bond strength, the contractor selected the
Single Bore Multiple Anchor (SBMA) system with comprehensive, selective post grouting.

The anchors were effective in reducing significantly the rate of movement of the wall.
Presently, the wall is being monitored for displacement and periodic lift off tests of the 2002
SBMA tiebacks are being performed while possible additional remediation efforts are devised
for future implementation as needed. The monitoring and lift off test data provided a unique
opportunity to correlate the response of the anchors with the wall movement. This paper
describes the design and construction of the SBMA anchors, testing of a sacrificial anchor, lift-
off testing procedures and results, and conclusions.

Background
Hodenpyl Dam, owned and operated by Consumers Electric Company of Cadillac, MI, is
located in Wexford and Manistee Counties, Michigan, USA, and is one of a series of dams
along the Manistee River. The facility was constructed between 1923 and 1925 and consists of
an earthen embankment running roughly in the north-south direction. The powerhouse, located
on the southern end of the embankment, discharges water to a tailrace channel excavated in
natural soils. Cantilever retaining walls of varying height were originally constructed on the
east and west sides of the tailrace channel. The right (east) downstream wall is approximately
250 feet long and 30 to 50 feet high (Figure 1).

After significant displacements of the wall were first noticed, a repair attempt was carried out
in 1996. The repair consisted of conventional strand anchors bonded into the high plasticity
clays existing behind the wall backfill. In addition, steel sheeting was installed bearing on the
wall footing and attached to the wall face. The sheeting was intended to provide structural
reinforcement and was not driven into the ground. Subsequent monitoring of the wall revealed
that lateral displacement of the wall continued to develop, and that additional stabilization
 Bruce, Gómez and Traylor, 2

measures were required. The monitoring data collected show that the wall is rotating around a
vertical axis located in upstream end of the shorter height section seen in Figure 1.

The Engineer specified a total of 13 restressable, regroutable anchors to improve the wall
stability. The remediation was designed to provide immediate improvement of the wall
stability while controlling construction costs. The Engineers also specified a detailed
monitoring/action plan, the results of which were to be used to determine whether subsequent
treatments were necessary. Full details of the investigation and analysis are discussed by
Gómez et al. (2004).

Figure 1. View of the tailrace channel and right downstream retaining wall. Note the sheeting
and tiebacks installed in 1996.

Bond Zone Materials

The soils behind the retaining wall comprise a layer of poorly graded sand, underlain by an
interval of overconsolidated clay (bond zone materials). The clay typically contains a 10- to
30-percent fraction of fine to coarse sand (passing #4 sieve and retained in #200 sieve as per
US practice) and traces of gravel-size particles (retained in #4 sieve). Sporadic lenses and/or
seams of sand were also detected at some locations within the clay mass. The plasticity of the
clay materials increases with depth. The 2002 tiebacks were bonded to high plasticity clay
with a plasticity index ranging between 32 and 50 percent and a liquid limit of 50 to 72 percent.
The clay stratum is underlain by a confined aquifer consisting of fine to coarse sands. The
presence of the aquifer induces upward flow within the stiff clay and above-hydrostatic pore
pressures around the tiebacks.

During design of the 2002 remediation, the Engineer realized that the available space for
bonding the tiebacks was limited. The existing tiebacks were located near the top of the wall
and inclined at angles steeper than 25 degrees with horizontal (see Figure 2). The Engineer also
recognized that the new tiebacks should not penetrate the underlying aquifer. The available
space for the new tiebacks did not allow for bond zone lengths longer than 40 ft. Finally, the
number of tiebacks was also limited due to the configuration of the reinforcing sheeting
installed in 1996.
 Bruce, Gómez and Traylor, 3

Figure 2. Typical section through the wall showing the 1996 (upper) tiebacks, the 2002 (lower)
SBMAs, and the geotechnical conditions.
1 pcf = 0.157 kN/m3; 1 psf = 0.048 kN/m2

Because of the limitation on the number and maximum bond length of the tiebacks, there was a
concern over the bond strength capacity of the tiebacks. Also, because the tiebacks were to be
bonded to stiff, high plasticity clay, the potential for creep of the tiebacks was considered
during design. The available proof testing data of the 1996 tiebacks showed that creep was
observed during at least one of the tests.

Single Bore Multiple Anchor System

It is fully acknowledged by researchers who have investigated grout/ground load transfer that
the distribution of stress along the fixed anchor is non-uniform due to general incompatibility
between elastic moduli of the anchor tendon, anchor grout, and the ground (Littlejohn and
Bruce, 1977; Barley, 2000). The top portion of Figure 3 depicts the “progressive debonding”
that occurs due to this incompatibility in a traditional tieback. The area under the bond stress
distribution line is representative of the ultimate load in the anchor. It can be seen that the load
does not increase uniformly with increasing length. In an SBMA, load transfer from the strand
to the grout takes place over a series of short lengths at staggered intervals along the borehole,
thereby reducing or eliminating the occurrence of progressive debonding and substantially
increasing the efficiency of the overall anchor. Full details on the SBMA system are discussed
by Barley and Windsor (2000).

A typical SBMA (Figure 4) consists of several unit anchors (single or double strand) with
varying lengths installed in a borehole (4- to 8-inch diameter (nominally 100 to 200 mm) such
that their respective load transfer lengths are located at predetermined positions within the total
fixed length.
 Bruce, Gómez and Traylor, 4

Anchor Load
Distribution for TENDON BOND LENGTH
Normal Anchor

Initial loading Ultimate loading

Bond stress

Loading Load distribution along fixed anchor Fixed anchor length

Generally 10m max

Single Bore Unit Anchor Tendons

Multiple Anchor
Load Distribution

Bond stress

Note: Total anchor load

equates to shaded area
under the curves Load distribution along fixed anchor Fixed anchor length can be
increased to 26m+

Figure 3. Comparison of load distribution along a conventional anchor

and an SBMA (Barley, 2000).

Unit anchors stressed simultaneously

Permanent Single Bore Multiple Anchor System only by use of hydraulically synchronized
Grout multiple jack system that accommodates
Typically 1.5 to 3.5m different unit anchor extensions
Unit anchor
Unit anchors
A
B
C
D

Anchor Encapsulation for Single Bore Multiple Anchor

Unit Anchor Encapsulation
Varies
Grout
A
Greased/Sheathed SECTION A-A One concentric impermeable
Strands corrugated plastic duct
One strand per
unit anchor
encapsulation

Strands to other
Strands to lower unit anchors
unit anchors

Figure 4. Elevations and cross section of a typical 4-unit SBMA.

 Bruce, Gómez and Traylor, 5

Sacrificial Anchor Installation and Testing

The Engineer required the installation and testing of a sacrificial SBMA anchor prior to
construction of production anchors. This anchor was installed using identical construction
methods and materials (see next section for construction details) and bonded in the same soils
as those proposed during production with the following exceptions a) the sacrificial anchor was
installed vertically, as opposed to being inclined at an angle of 20 below horizontal; b) three
10-foot-long unit encapsulations were installed as opposed to four to avoid penetration into the
sand aquifer; and c) the upper two unit anchors contained two strands in each encapsulation to
allow load testing to very high grout/ground bond stress.

The jack arrangement for a three-unit SBMA includes three hydraulic rams that are
synchronized by coupling to the same hydraulic powerpack, so that the same load is applied
simultaneously to each unit anchor. The jacking arrangement is shown in Figure 5. A primary
gauge and a reference gauge were calibrated with one of the jacks. The ram extensions were
recorded using a stiff steel rule, and during creep testing by using a vernier caliper.
Measurements were corrected for reaction pad movement measured by dial gauges mounted on
an independent reference beam.

Two tests were conducted on the sacrificial anchor: 1) Performance/Extended Creep Tests (PTI,
1996), and 2) a high bond capacity test. Since creep was a concern on this project, the
load-hold period was extended overnight (total load-hold time 810 minutes) at maximum test
load. The linearity of the load/movement plots indicated that virtually no progressive
debonding occurred into the unit fixed anchor. The maximum test load for the high bond
capacity test was limited by the steel capacity, and so an ultimate bond stress was not
measured. The average mobilized bond stress was 5.0 kip/ft2 (239 kPa) at the maximum test
load with no creep or failure.

Figure 5. Sacrificial test anchor stressing jack.

Details of Anchor Construction
 Bruce, Gómez and Traylor, 6

The production SBMAs were installed between July 29 and August 23, 2002. Testing and lock
off were conducted August 29 and 30, 2002. Anchor holes were drilled using rotary duplex
with water flush and 7-inch (nominally 175 mm) casing with an approximate 1-inch (25 mm)
overcut from the casing shoe teeth, resulting in an 8- to 8½-inch (nominally 200 to 216 mm)
hole diameter. Casing was advanced to the target tip elevation for each anchor.

The specified working load for each anchor was 135 kips (600 kN). Anchor geometry and
design requirements dictated a minimum free length of 50 feet (15 m); a minimum bond length
of 40 feet (12 m); a minimum drill hole diameter of 5 inches (127 mm); and an anchor
inclination of 20° (or less). Class I corrosion protection (PTI, 2004) was required for the
anchors. A summary of “unit” anchor lengths and SBMA geometry is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of unit anchor lengths and SBMA geometry for each anchor.

TOTAL
UNIT FREE FIXED
TENDON
ANCHOR LENGTH LENGTH
LENGTH*
A 55 ft (16.7 m) 11.5 (3.5 m) 71.5 (21.8 m)
B 66.5 (20.2 m) 10 (3.1 m) 81.5 (24.8 m)
C 76.5 (23.3 m) 10 (3.1 m) 91.5 (27.9 m)
D 86.5 (26.3 m) 10 (3.1 m) 101.5 (31.0 m)
*Total tendon length = 5-foot tail + free length + fixed length

All anchors were subjected to two phases of post grouting. Two performance and extended
creep tests were conducted on production anchors. All other production anchors were proof-
tested. The maximum test load was 180 kip (805 kN), or 44.9 kips (201 kN) per strand (see
Bruce et al. 2004).

All unit anchors were locked off after testing at 34 kips (152 kN) using a mono-strand jack.
The strands were then trimmed to approximately 8 inches (203 mm) above the gripping
wedges. The trumpets were grouted, and the steel caps were filled with grease and installed as
designed.

Lift-Off Testing Procedures

Lift-off tests were conducted in April 2004, April 2005, and May 2007. The steel anchor head
caps were removed and the grease stripped from the strands. A mono-strand jack was used to
lift-off each of the 4-strand SBMA individually. Lift-off was defined as the load at which the
gauge pressure increase hesitated during loading and at which a 0.020 inch-thick (0.5 mm)
feeler gauge could first be fitted below the barrel (Figure 6).

During the test it was observed that the strands and wedges did not show evidence of corrosion
as a consequence of removing the greased-filled cap in each of the lift-off events. Indentations
of the stressing wedges on the strands occurred during the 2004 and 2005 lift-off events were
visible. However, these did not pose significant concerns for the last testing event. Should
future monitoring of the tieback load be necessary, it is recommended that load cells be used
which can be read remotely to avoid potential risks associated with loss of capacity of the
strand or loss of grip due to increasing size and frequency of the indentations.
 Bruce, Gómez and Traylor, 7

Feeler
gauge

Figure 6. Measuring lift-off using feeler gauge.

Lift-Off Testing Results

Lift-off loads ranged from 29.55 to 38.27 kips (131 to 170 kN) per strand. The highest load
measured was 113% of the generalized lock off load, which is equivalent to 65.6% GUTS. The
lift-off loads measured are shown graphically in Figure 7. It is interesting to note that the lift
off load increases in the downstream direction along the wall. This correlates well with the
pattern of wall displacement measured, which suggests that the wall is rotating around a
vertical axis located near the tieback located further upstream.

Figure 8 shows a comparison between the increase in tieback load measured during each lift-
off event, and the theoretical increase in tieback load calculated from the measured wall
displacements at each tieback location. The 45-degree line shown corresponds to full
agreement between the theoretical and measured load increases. The data in the figure show
that there is good agreement between the data and the 45-degree line, thus suggesting that the
tiebacks have not undergone yielding or creep since installation.

Apr-05 Apr-04 Lock Off Load May-07

150 110%
% of Lock-Off Load
Lift-Off Load (kips)

145
105%
140
135 100%
130
95%
125
120 90%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Anchor No.

Figure 7. Lift-off loads (total of all strands). 1 kip = 4.448 kN

 Bruce, Gómez and Traylor, 8

Figure 8. Comparison of estimated anchor load (based on wall movement) and anchor load
measured during lift-off testing (2007). 1 kip = 4.448 kN
Conclusions
Based on the results obtained during load testing and lift-off testing of the SBMA elements, we
may conclude the following:

 The sacrificial test showed that the SBMA installed in high plasticity clay may develop
significant capacity.
 The sacrificial load and production tests showed that creep in the high plasticity clay was
insignificant, even though the design bond stresses were relatively high.
 Comparison between the lift-off test data and the wall monitoring data shows that the
production tiebacks have not undergone significant creep during the five years elapsed
since their installation in 2002
 Repeated lift-off testing of the tiebacks did not appear to have a detrimental effect on the
tiebacks.
 The SBMA technology is a valuable tool in projects on which it is necessary to install
large-capacity tiebacks in high-plasticity clay.

Acknowledgements
We thank Consumers Energy Company and especially Mr. Stuart Johnson for kindly allowing
the publication of the information contained in this paper. Additional thanks must also go to
Gerace Construction Company for the cooperation during the construction and lift-off testing
phases. Tony Barley (SBMA, LLC) provided important insight during design. We also thank
Schnabel Engineering, Applied Geosciences and Engineering, and geotechnica, s.a., Inc. for
their effort and time during preparation of this paper.
 Bruce, Gómez and Traylor, 9

References
Barley, A.D. (2000). “Trial soil nails for tunnel face support in London Clay and the detected
influence of tendon stiffness and bond length on load transfer.” Proceedings of the Third
International Geosystems, London, UK, June.
Barley, A.D., and Windsor, C.R. (2000). “Recent advances in ground anchor and ground
reinforcement technology with reference to the development of the art,” GeoEng 2000,
International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Melbourne,
November 12-19, pp, 1084-1094.
Bruce, M.E., R.P. Traylor, A.D. Barley, D.A. Bruce and J. Gómez. (2004). “Post Grouted
Single Bore Multiple Anchors at Hodenpyl Dam, Michigan,” GeoSupport 2004 Drilled
Shafts, Micropiling, Deep Mixing, Remedial Methods, and Specialty Foundation Systems,
ADSC: International Association of Foundation Drilling and American Society of Civil
Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 124, Orlando, FL, January 29-31,
pp. 361-373.
Gómez, J., M.E. Bruce, D.A. Bruce, D.L. Basinger and A.W. Cadden. (2004). “Stabilization of
Retaining Wall along Tailrace Channel of Hodenpyl Dam,” GeoSupport 2004 Drilled Shafts,
Micropiling, Deep Mixing, Remedial Methods, and Specialty Foundation Systems, , ADSC:
International Association of Foundation Drilling and American Society of Civil Engineers,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 124, Orlando, FL, January 29-31, pp. 346-360.
Littlejohn, G.S. and Bruce, D.A. (1977). “Rock Anchors - State of the Art.” Foundation
Publications, Essex, England, 50 pp. (Previously published in Ground Engineering in 5 parts,
1975-1976.)
Post Tensioning Institute (PTI) (1996). “Recommendations for prestressed rock and soil
anchors.” Post Tensioning Manual. Fourth Edition. Phoenix, Arizona. 41 p.