Marine Georesources & Geotechnology

ISSN: 1064-119X (Print) 1521-0618 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/umgt20

Vertical uplift capacity of a group of shallow

circular plate anchors in sand

R. Ganesh & Jagdish Prasad Sahoo

To cite this article: R. Ganesh & Jagdish Prasad Sahoo (2019) Vertical uplift capacity of a
group of shallow circular plate anchors in sand, Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 37:3,
282-290, DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2017.1410868

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2017.1410868

Published online: 21 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 337

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=umgt20
MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY
2019, VOL. 37, NO. 3, 282–290
https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2017.1410868

none defined

Vertical uplift capacity of a group of shallow circular plate anchors in sand

R. Ganesh and Jagdish Prasad Sahoo
Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The uplift capacity of a group of circular plate anchors buried horizontally in sand along a line has been Received 2 August 2017
determined. The uplift capacity of an interfering anchor is presented in terms of nondimensional uplift Accepted 25 November 2017
factors, Fγi and Fqi, due to components of soil unit weight and surcharge pressure acting on the ground KEYWORDS
surface, respectively. Theoretical solutions have been developed by applying the upper bound theorem Anchors; circular; limit
of limit analysis based on a simple rigid wedge collapse mechanism. In the case of two and infinite analysis; sand; uplift capacity
number of anchors, closed-form solutions have been developed for computing the factor Fqi, whereas the
factor Fγi is determined using a semianalytical approach. As expected, the interference of the anchors
leads to a continuous reduction in the uplift resistance with a decrease in the spacing between the
anchors, and the uplift resistance decreases with the increasing number of anchors at a given spacing.
The results compare reasonably well with the available theoretical and experimental data from the
literature.

Introduction uplift resistance has been determined by Kouzer and Kumar

(2009a, 2009b) for a group of two anchors and infinite number
Plate anchors are often used for resisting vertical uplift forces
of anchors. Sahoo and Kumar (2014a, 2014b) have studied the
for the foundations of different onshore and offshore
interference effect on the uplift resistance of two horizontal
structures such as transmission towers, dry docks, and buried
strip plate anchors placed in fully cohesive soil and cohesive-
pipelines. In practice, anchors are usually embedded in a
frictional soil by performing limit analysis in combination
group rather than being placed in an isolated way. Several
with finite elements and linear optimization. From the theor-
studies have been reported by different researchers to
etical and experimental studies, it has been found that the
estimate the vertical uplift resistance of a single isolated hori-
uplift resistance of a group of anchors reduces substantially
zontal plate anchor (Meyerhof and Adams 1968; Das 1978;
with a decrease in the spacing between the anchors and with
Ovesen 1981; Rowe and Davis 1982; Murray and Geddes
an increase in the number of anchors for a given spacing.
1987; Dickin 1988; Das et al. 1994; Das 1995; Rao, Ravi, and
Except the empirical solution provided by Meyerhof and
Prasad 1997; Merifield and Sloan 2006; Singh, Tripathy, and
Adams (1968) and the experimental study of Hanna, Sparks,
Ramaswamy 2007; Kumar and Kouzer 2008a; Wang, Hu,
and Yilmaz (1972), no research seems to have been performed
and Randolph 2010; Kim, Choo, and Kim 2014; Zhang et al.
to predict the vertical uplift resistance for a group of circular
2016; Sahoo and Khuntia 2017). However, only little infor-
plate anchors embedded in a soil mass. Meyerhof and Adams
mation is available on determining the vertical uplift resistance
(1968) developed an approximate general theory for investing
of a group of horizontal anchors placed close to each other
the uplift capacity of strip footings, which was modified in that
(Meyerhof and Adams 1968; Hanna, Sparks, and Yilmaz
investigation to take into account the effect of group action of
1972; Geddes and Murray 1996; Kumar and Kouzer 2008b;
foundations. The group efficiency computed by this theory was
Kouzer and Kumar 2009a, 2009b; Sahoo and Kumar 2014a,
found to increase linearly with the spacing between the
2014b). Meyerhof and Adams (1968) obtained theoretical
anchors. Hanna, Sparks, and Yilmaz (1972) have conducted
solutions for determining the uplift capacity for a group of
experiments for group of anchors in sand with angle of internal
anchors using limit equilibrium approach, in which the verti-
friction equal to 37° only for an embedment ratio of 6. In the
cal equilibrium of a soil wedge encircling the outer edges of the
present research, theoretical and empirical methods have been
extreme anchors in the group was taken into account. The
proposed for predicting the vertical uplift resistance of a group
results of small-scale laboratory model tests have been
of equally spaced multiple number of circular anchors, having
reported by Hanna, Sparks, and Yilmaz (1972) on a group of
equal diameters and placed horizontally in sand. Using the
circular anchors and by Geddes and Murray (1996) on a group
developed methods, the effect of spacing between the anchors
of square anchors. Kumar and Kouzer (2008b) determined the
S and the number of anchors (n) for a given spacing in a group
ultimate uplift capacity for a group of strip anchors embedded
of circular anchors embedded in sand in the presence of
in sand based on upper bound theorem of limit analysis with
surcharge pressure can be evaluated, for different embedment
employment of a simple rigid wedge mechanism. With the
ratios of anchors and internal friction angles of sand.
help of upper bound finite element limit analysis, vertical

CONTACT Jagdish Prasad Sahoo jpscivil@gmail.com Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee 247667, India.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
 MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 283

Statement of the problem

A group of two and infinite number of circular plate anchors
each having diameter D is buried in sand horizontally at the
same level at a depth H below the ground surface with a clear
spacing S as shown in Figure 1a,b. The ground surface is
horizontal and is subjected to uniform surcharge pressure
(q). The anchor plates are assumed to be perfectly rigid and
its thickness is negligible as compared to its diameter. It is
assumed that all the anchor plates in the group are loaded to
collapse simultaneously exactly at the same magnitude of the
collapse load and are subjected to the same uniform vertical
upward velocity without any bending or tilt at collapse. Thus,
the ultimate uplift capacity of the group is equal to n times the
ultimate capacity of an interfering anchor, where n is the num-
ber of anchors in the group. The principle of superposition is
assumed to be valid and the total uplift resistance of an anchor
is obtained with the separate consideration of surcharge and
unit weight components. The angle of interface friction
between the anchor plates and the surrounding soil mass
was taken equal to angle of internal friction of sand (ϕ) as it
is known that soil–anchor interface roughness has little effect
on the uplift capacity of the horizontal plate anchors (Rowe
and Davis 1982). The soil mass is assumed to be perfectly
plastic satisfying Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion with an Figure 2. For a group of two anchors, (a) rigid wedge collapse mechanism and
(b) description of geometry of rupture surface.
associated flow rule.

Murray and Geddes (1987) and Kumar (2003), the present

Analysis
The rupture surfaces for shallow embedded anchors were
found to be planar in nature from laboratory model tests
performed by Ilamparuthi and Muthukrishnaiah (1999),
Ilamparuthi, Dickin, and Muthukrisnaiah (2002), Liu, Liu, and
Zhu (2011), and Dyson and Rognon (2014). Hence, following
analysis has been performed on the basis of simple rigid wedge
collapse mechanism as shown in Figures 2 and 3 for a group of
two and infinite number of anchors, respectively. The failure of
soil mass lying above each anchor plate is assumed to occur in
the shape of an inverted frustum of cone, which moves as a

Figure 1. Definition of problem for a group of (a) two anchors; (b) infinite Figure 3. For a group of infinite anchors, (a) rigid wedge collapse mechanism
anchors. and (b) description of geometry of rupture surface.
284 R. GANESH AND J. P. SAHOO

single rigid block with a velocity same as that of the anchor plate Referring to Figures 2b and 3b, the radius of the inverted
itself. The generators of the failure wedge must make an angle ϕ frustum of cone at a vertical distance y from the assumed
with the vertical for an associated frictional material. In addition origin “O” is expressed as:
to that, the surcharge placed over the failure wedge is also D S
assumed to move with a velocity same as that of rigid block. It ry ¼ þ þ y tan / ð3aÞ
2 2
needs to be mentioned that the resistance of anchor due to
self-weight of soil and surcharge may not attain their ultimate and the radius of the inverted frustum of cone at the top of
value simultaneously at the time of incipient collapse. However, failure wedge is given by:
for simplification of analysis and ensuring the essential kine- D S
matic admissibility constraints of upper bound limit analysis, r¼ þ þ h tan / ð3bÞ
2 2
both the surcharge and soil mass within the rigid block are con-
where h ¼ H S2 cot /.
sidered to be moving at the same velocity at ultimate failure to
The angle made by the edges of the plane passing through
obtain the minimum resistances due to the components of soil
KLM with the vertical axis passing through O at a vertical
unit weight (γ) and surcharge pressure (q); the same concept
distance y from the origin “O” can be written as:
has also been used by Kumar (2003). In the case of a group of � �
two anchors with S � 2Htanϕ as provided in Figure 2a, the rup- 1 D=2 þ S=2
ay ¼ 2 cos ð4aÞ
ture surface generated from both the inner edges J1 and I2, and D=2 þ S=2 þ y tan /
outer edges I1 and J2 of the anchors simply joins the vertical
symmetric plane (KLM) between the two anchors and ground and the angle made by the cord LM with O0 , that is, LO0 M is
surface. On the other hand, for a group of infinite anchors with expressed as:
� �
S � 2Htanϕ, the generators of the failure surface emanating 1 D=2 þ S=2
a ¼ 2 cos ð4bÞ
from both the edges simply join the corresponding vertical sym- D=2 þ S=2 þ h tan /
metric planes between the anchors as illustrated in Figure 3a.
The failure surfaces originating from both edges of the anchor Note that α is in radians, and O0 is the point of intersection
plate simply extend up to the ground surface for the spacing of y-axis with the top surface of the failure wedge.
greater than 2Htanϕ for both groups of two and infinite anchors. From the geometry of the sector O0 LNM, the area of the
The magnitude of the collapse load is obtained by equating the segment LMN is determined by the following formula:
rate of work done by the external and body forces to the rate of a sin a 2
ALMN ¼ r ð5aÞ
dissipation of total internal energy. For a frictional material, the 2
rate of dissipation of total internal energy becomes simply zero
Similarly, the segmental area at any vertical distance y from
(Chen 1975). On the basis of principles of superposition, the
the point K in the wedge KLMN can be expressed by:
magnitude of collapse load Pui for an interfering anchor can � �2
be expressed as: ay sin ay D S
Ay ¼ þ þ y tan / ð5bÞ
2 2 2
Pui ¼ Puci þ Puqi ð1Þ
The weight of the material bounded in the region KLMN
where Puγi and Puqi are the collapse load due to the component can be obtained as follows:
of soil unit weight (γ) and surcharge pressure (q), respectively.
Puγi is equal to the weight of the material contained within the Zh
wedge (1) I1J1KLMB (Figure 2a) for the case of two anchors WKLMN ¼ c Ay dy ð6Þ
and I1J1KLMM1L1K1 (Figure 3a) for the case of infinite anchors 0
with S � 2Htanϕ, and (2) I1J1NB for both two and infinite
anchors with S > 2Htanϕ. On the other hand, Puqi is equal to
the load due to surcharge pressure q acting on the area (1)
Group of two plate anchors
LMB (Figure 2a) and LMM1L1 (Figure 3a) for the case of two
cpH � 2 �
anchors and infinite anchors, respectively, with S � 2Htanϕ, Puci ¼ 3D þ 6DH tan / þ 4H 2 tan2 / WKLMN ð7aÞ
and (2) LNMM1BN1L1 for both two and infinite anchors with 12 � �
S > 2Htanϕ. 2 p a sin a
Puqi ¼ qðD þ 2H tan /Þ ð7bÞ
The ultimate uplift capacity (pui) per unit area of an anchor 4 8
plate in a group can be written in the following forms: The Eqs. (7a) and (7b) are valid for 0 �S � 2Htanϕ.
Pui The uplift factors Fγi and Fqi for an interfering anchor in a
pui ¼ ¼ cDFci þ qFqi ð2aÞ group of two anchors are expressed in the nondimensional
A
form in the following expressions:
Puci Puqi
¼ cDFci ; ¼ qFqi ð2bÞ Pu k� � 4I
A A Fci ¼ ci ¼ 3 þ 6k tan / þ 4k2 tan2 / ð8aÞ
AcD 3 p
where A refers to the area of anchor plate, and Fγi and Fqi are � �
Puqi ða sin aÞ
the nondimensional uplift factors of an interfering anchor Fqi ¼ ¼ ð1 þ 2k tan /Þ2 1 ð8bÞ
Aq 2p
corresponding to the components of soil unit weight and
surcharge, respectively. where k ¼ HD ¼ embedment ratio of the anchors
 MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 285

Zu
Results and discussion
I¼ Ey dy
0
Variation of uplift factors for an interfering anchor
ay sin ay For an interfering anchor in a group of two and infinite
Ey ¼ ½0:5 ð1 þ bÞ þ k tan /�2
2 number of anchors, the variation of uplift factors with S/D
S y for different values of ϕ and λ is shown in Figures 4 and 5.
b¼ ¼ spacing ratio between the anchors; k ¼
D D The values of Fγi and Fqi are computed using Eqs. (8a,b) and
u ¼ k 0:5b cot / (12a,b). Figure 4a–d depicts the variation of Fγi with S/D for
� � ϕ varying from 25° to 45° and λ ranging from 1 to 7. The
1 ð1 þ bÞ
ay ¼ 2 cos changes in the values of Fqi with S/D for different values of
ð1 þ bÞ þ 2k tan /
ϕ is presented in Figure 5 only for λ equal to 7; the values
The magnitude of I in Eq. (8a) is computed numerically of Fqi for different values of S/D and H/D is directly obtained
using the global adaptive quadrature with the help of from the closed-form solution as given in Eqs. (8b) and (11b).
MATLAB (2015), wherein the integral of the function I is Due to the complexity involved in obtaining the closed-form
approximated as the integral of a scalar-valued function with solutions for estimating the factor Fγi, the values of Fγi
the help of static quadrature rules on adaptively refined obtained numerically from Eqs. (8a) and (12a) for a group
subintervals from 0 to u. of two and infinite anchors can be approximated by the
When S ¼ 2Htanϕ, Eqs. (7) and (8) converge to the solution following equations:
of a single isolated plate anchor, that is, �
Fcitwo ¼ 1 0:15 cot2 / em Fc0 ð13Þ
cpH � 2 � � �2
Puc0 ¼ 3D þ 6DH tan / þ 4H 2 tan2 / ð9aÞ where m ¼ 1 2:4 1:83 tan / 0:04k þ 0:94 bk
12
qp
Puq0 ¼ ðD þ 2H tan /Þ2 ð9bÞ Fciinf ¼ 2Fcitwo Fc0 ð14Þ
4
k� � In Eqs. (13) and (14), Fcitwo and Fciinf denote the uplift factor
Fc0 ¼ 3 þ 6k tan / þ 4k2 tan2 / ð10aÞ for an interfering anchor in a group of two and infinite
3
number of anchors, respectively, corresponding to the unit
Fq0 ¼ ð1 þ 2k tan /Þ2 ð10bÞ
weight of sand. The empirical Eq. (13) was produced by the
In the above expressions, (1) Puγ0 and Fγ0 refer to the regression analysis of the results for the different combination
collapse load and uplift factor, respectively due to the soil unit of internal friction angle of sand, embedment ratio, and
weight (γ); and (2) Puq0 and Fγ0 correspond to the collapse spacing ratio between anchors for a group of two anchors,
load and uplift factor, respectively, due to the surcharge and the coefficient of determination was found to be 0.97.
pressure (q), for an isolated single anchor. It has been found that the values of uplift factors (Fγi and
Fqi) for both a group of two and infinite anchors continuously
decrease as the spacing between the anchors decreases and are
always minimum when S/D ¼ 0 for a given value of ϕ and λ.
Group of infinite number of plate anchors However, there is no interference effect on the uplift resistance
pcH � 2 � for S � 2Htanϕ, and the uplift resistance of an interfering
Puc ¼ 3D þ 6DH tan / þ 4H 2 tan2 / WKLMN
12 anchor becomes simply equal to that of an isolated single
WK1 L1 M1 B anchor. In the other words, when S � 2Htanϕ, the uplift resist-
ð11aÞ ance of a group anchors is equal to n times the uplift resistance
� � of an isolated anchor, where n refers to the number of anchors
p a sin a
Puq ¼ qðD þ 2H tan /Þ2 ð11bÞ in the group. The optimum spacing between the anchors is
4 4 2Htanϕ. It is worth mentioning here that the value of the opti-
Eqs. (11a) and (11b) are valid for 0 �S � 2Htanϕ. mum spacing depends on the depth of embedment of anchors
By substituting the values of WKLMNand WK1 L1 M1 B , the and the angle of internal friction of sand. In all the cases, the
uplift factors Fγi and Fqi for an interfering anchor in a group uplift resistance of an interfering anchor in a group of infinite
of infinite anchors are expressed in the nondimensional form anchors has found to be smaller than that of in a group of two
in the following expressions: anchors.
To determine the uplift capacity of an interfering anchor in
k� � 8I a group of finite multiple anchors (3, 4, 5, etc.), that is, number
Fci ¼ 3 þ 6k tan / þ 4k2 tan2 / ð12aÞ
3 p of anchors greater than 2 and less than infinite, the solutions
� �
ð a sin a Þ developed in Eqs. (8) and (12) are not applicable, since the
Fqi ¼ ð1 þ 2k tan /Þ2 1 ð12bÞ rigid wedge collapse mechanism as illustrated in Figures 2
p
and 3 for a group of two and infinite anchors is different from
In Eq. (12a), I is exactly the same as that defined in Eq. (8a). that of odd numbers (3, 5, 7, etc.) and even numbers (4, 6, 8,
The expressions given in Eqs. (11) and (12) converge to the etc.) of anchors in the group of finite multiple anchors. Hence,
solution of a single isolated plate anchor for S ¼ 2Htanϕ, an empirical expression has been proposed to calculate the
which are expressed in Eqs. (9) and (10). uplift capacity of an anchor in a group with number of anchors
286 R. GANESH AND J. P. SAHOO

Figure 4. The variation of Fγi with S/D and ϕ for a group of two and infinite anchors with (a) λ ¼ 1; (b) λ ¼ 3; (c) λ ¼ 5; and (d) λ ¼ 7.

Figure 5. The variation of Fqi with S/D and ϕ for a group of two and infinite anchors with (a) λ ¼ 1; (b) λ ¼ 3; (c) λ ¼ 5; and (d) λ ¼ 7.
 MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 287

greater than 2 and less than infinite in terms of uplift capacity

of an interfering anchor in a group of two and infinite anchors,
which is written as follows:
2Fcitwo þ ðn 2ÞFciinf
Fcin ¼ ð15Þ
n
2Fqitwo þ ðn 2ÞFqiinf
Fqin ¼ ð16Þ
n
where (1) Fcin denote the uplift factors due to the unit weight of
sand for an interfering anchor in a group of n number of
anchors and (2) Fqitwo , Fqin , and Fqiinf refer to the uplift factors
due to surcharge pressure, for an interfering anchor in a group
of two, n, and infinite number of anchors, respectively.
The change of Fcin and Fqin by varying the number of anchors
n for different spacing between the anchors and angle of inter-
nal friction of soil for λ ¼ 2 and 6 are presented in Figures 6
and 7. It can be seen that at a given spacing between the
anchors for different values of ϕ and λ, the uplift capacity of
an interfering anchor decreases (1) steeply by increasing the
number of anchors up to 3, and (2) gradually further with
an increase in the number of anchors up to a certain value,
after which it remains almost constant with further increasing

Figure 7. The variation of Fqi with n for different values of ϕ and S/D with
(a) λ ¼ 2 and (b) λ ¼ 6.

the number of anchors, and equals to that of an identical

anchor in a group of infinite number of anchors. For
S < 2Htanϕ, the number of anchors for which the pullout
capacity of a group of finite anchors is almost the same as that
of a group of infinite anchors, has been found to be approxi-
mately equal to 12 with S/D ¼ 0, and decreases with an
increase in the spacing between the anchors.

Comparison of the present results with those

Figure 6. The variation of Fγi with n for different values of ϕ and S/D with
(a) λ ¼ 2 and (b) λ ¼ 6.
available from the literature
To validate the present formulation, the results obtained from
the present analysis were compared with the solutions
available from the literature both for (1) a single isolated
anchor and (2) a group of multiple anchors. For a single iso-
lated anchor, Fγ0 and Fq0 obtained from the present analysis
are compared with the theoretical solutions of Meyerhof and
Adams (1968), Murray and Geddes (1987), and Kumar
(2003) as provided in Table 1, and the present Fγ0 values with
numerical solutions of Merifield et al. (2006) as illustrated in
Figure 8. From Table 1, it can be noticed that the present
results are exactly same as that provided by Murray and
Geddes (1987) and Kumar (2003) using limit analysis. It needs
288 R. GANESH AND J. P. SAHOO

Table 1. Comparison of present Fγ0 and Fq0 values with the theoretical solutions available in the literature for λ ¼ 3.
Murray and Geddes (1987)
Present analysis Limit analysis Equilibrium approach Kumar (2003) Meyerhof and Adams (1968)
ϕ Fγ0 Fq0 Fγ0 Fq0 Fγ0 Fγ0 Fq0 Fγ0 Fq0
15° 10.41 6.80 10.41 6.80 13.22 10.41 6.80 7.58 4.05
30° 25.39 19.93 25.39 19.93 27.64 25.39 19.93 17.32 10.54
45° 57.00 49.00 57.00 49.00 43.63 57.00 49.00 45.75 29.5

to be mentioned that for a single isolated anchor, the collapse

Figure 8. Comparison of the present results with the numerical results of
Merifield et al. (2006) for a single isolated anchor.
mechanism used in this study is exactly the same as used by
Murray and Geddes (1987) and Kumar (2003). The present
results are also in good agreement with the limit equilibrium
solutions of Meyerhof and Adams (1968) and Murray and
Geddes (1987). As expected, for all the three values of ϕ equal
to 20°, 30°, and 40°, the present upper bound results are
greater than the three-dimensional lower bound finite element
(LBFE) results of Merifield et al. (2006). On the other hand,
the results obtained by Merifield et al. (2006) by performing
the axisymmetrical elastoplastic finite element analysis with
the help of SNAC software have been found to be higher for
greater values of ϕ and lower for smaller values of ϕ, as
compared to the present results.
For a group of two, three, and five anchors, the present
results are compared with the theoretical solutions of Meyer-
hof and Adams (1968) and experimental results of Hanna,
Sparks, and Yilmaz (1972). The associated comparisons are

Figure 9. Comparison of present results with those available in the literature for a group of (a) two anchors; (b) three anchors; and (c) five anchors.

provided in Figure 9a–c. The comparison is made in terms of
efficiency factor (ξγ), which is defined as the percentage ratio
of the ultimate group load divided by n times the ultimate load
of an isolated single anchor, where n is the number of anchors
in the group. The comparison of results herein has been
provided in the similar manner as it is already given by Hanna,
Sparks, and Yilmaz (1972), since no information is available as
provided by Hanna, Sparks, and Yilmaz (1972) for determin-
ing the ultimate uplift capacity of either an isolated single
anchor or the group of anchors. Hanna, Sparks, and Yilmaz
(1972) performed laboratory model tests on circular
plate anchors with λ ¼ 6 and plate diameter of 38 mm
embedded in sand with mass density ¼ 1517 kg/m3, relative
density ¼ 39%, over consolidation ratio ¼ 1, and internal
friction angle ¼ 37°. The present results obtained, using
(1) theoretical method (Eq. (8a)) and empirical method
(Eq. (13)) for a group of two anchors and (2) empirical
method (Eq. (15)) for a group of three and five anchors, are
found to be a little lower than the experimental results. On
the other hand, Meyerhof and Adams (1968) theory was found
to slightly overpredict the experimental results.
Remarks
The anchors embedded at a given depth may be considered to
be shallow or deep anchors based on the extent of rupture
zone at the ultimate shear failure. In the case of shallow
anchors, the failure zone extends to ground surface resulting
in an increase in the uplift resistance with an increase in the
embedment ratio, whereas the rupture zone is confined
around the anchor plate in the case of deep anchors beyond
a particular embedment ratio, that is, the critical embedment
ratio. The magnitude of uplift resistance corresponding to
embedment ratio greater than that critical embedment ratio
remains almost constant. From the laboratory experimental
test results, Ilamparuthi, Dickin, and Muthukrisnaiah (2002)
have reported that the critical embedment ratio for circular
anchors embedded in loose, medium dense, and dense sand
are 4.8, 5.9, and 6.8, respectively. In this analysis, the failure
surface is assumed to reach up to the ground surface and thus,
the solutions obtained from the present method will be
applicable only for anchors embedded at shallow depths.
Further, solutions were obtained in the present study for
different values of λ with ϕ varying from 20° to 45°, which
can be applicable for circular anchors embedded in loose sand
to dense sand. Therefore, the present results for embedment
ratio greater than 4.8, 5.9, and 6.8 for loose, medium dense
and dense sand, respectively, may overpredict the uplift
resistance of circular plate anchors. Furthermore, the present
solutions will be used for resisting uplift forces acting on strip
foundations, such as foundations of retaining walls, pipelines,
where a group of anchors is generally installed along a line.
It is known that the extent of dilatancy observed in sand is
generally much smaller than that predicted on the basis of an
assumption of the associated flow rule (Rowe and Davis 1982).
Drescher and Detournay (1993) have pointed out that the
assumption of an associated flow rule generally provides
greater values of collapse loads than that obtained with the
usage of a nonassociated flow rule. However, for a material
MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 289
obeying nonassociated flow rule, the solutions obtained in
the present study can be applied by replacing the value of ϕ
with ϕ* for a known value of dilatancy angle (ψ), as per the
recommendation of Drescher and Detournay (1993) and
Michalowski and Shi (1995).
cos w sin /
1
/� ¼ tan ð17Þ
1 sin w sin /
When the water table is located above the anchor plate, the
uplift capacity can be computed by simply putting γ ¼ γ0 in
the analysis; where γ0 is the effective unit weight of sand.
The variation in the value of ϕ above and below the water level
is reported to be negligible in granular soils (Krishnamurthy
and Kameswara Rao 1975); thus, the same value of ϕ can be
taken into account above and below the water level for obtain-
ing the solutions. It needs to be mentioned that though a
group of infinite number of anchors is hypothetical; however,
it has been considered in the analysis for simplification due
to complexity involved in the consideration of the failure
mechanism and determination of the weight of the material
contained within the failure wedges in a group of finite
number of anchors more than two.
Conclusion
Theoretical and empirical solutions have been produced for
determining the ultimate uplift resistance of a group of
multiple interfering circular plate anchors embedded horizon-
tally along a line in homogeneous sand. The theoretical
solutions were developed based on the assumptions of simple
rigid wedge collapse mechanism in combination with the
upper bound theorem of limit analysis. The solutions
developed in the present study are expected to be useful for
the purpose of design of a group of multiple circular plate
anchors embedded in sand. The specific concluding points
drawn from the present study are summarized as follows:
1. No interference has been found to exist between the
anchors for a spacing greater than or equal to 2Htanϕ,
whereas for S � 2Htanϕ, the uplift resistance of anchors
reduces continuously with a decrease in the spacing
between the anchors.
2. For a given spacing between the anchors, the uplift
resistance of a group of anchors continuously decreases
with an increase in the number of anchors up to a certain
limit, before attaining a certain minimum value of uplift
resistance; this minimum value is equal to that of a group
of infinite number of anchors.
3. The pullout capacity of a group of finite interfering anchors
has been found to be almost the same as that of a group of
infinite interfering anchors corresponding to a particular
number of anchors, and this number increases with a
decrease in the spacing between the anchors.
ORCID
R. Ganesh http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6495-7424
290 R. GANESH AND J. P. SAHOO
References
Chen, W. F. 1975. Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Das, B. M. 1978. Model tests for uplift capacity of foundations in clay.
Soils and Foundations 18 (2):17–24.
Das, B. M. 1995. Behavior of shallow plate anchors in clay under sustained
loading. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology 13 (4):417–28.
Das, B. M., E. C. Shin, R. N. Dass, and M. T. Omar. 1994. Suction force
below plate anchors in soft clay. Marine Georesources and Geotechology
12 (1):71–81.
Dickin, E. A. 1988. Uplift behavior of horizontal anchor plates in sand.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 114 (11):1300–1317.
Drescher, A., and E. Detournay. 1993. Limit load in translational
failure mechanisms for associative and non-associative materials.
Geotechnique, 43 (3):443–56.
Dyson, A. S., and P. G. Rognon. 2014. Pull-out capacity of tree root
inspired anchors in shallow granular soils. Geotechnique Letters 4 (4):
301(305.
Geddes, J. D., and E. J. Murray. 1996. Plate anchor groups pulled
vertically in sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 122 (7):
509–16.
Hanna, T. H., R. Sparks, and M. Yilmaz. 1972. Anchor behavior in sand.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE 98 (11):
1187–207.
Ilamparuthi, K., and K. Muthukrishnaiah. 1999. Anchors in sand bed:
Delineation of rupture surface. Ocean Engineering 26:1249–73.
Ilamparuthi, K., E. A. Dickin, and K. Muthukrisnaiah. 2002.
Experimental investigation of the uplift behaviour of circular plate
anchors embedded in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
39 (3):648–64.
Kim, S., Y. W. Choo, and D. S. Kim. 2014. Pullout capacity of horizontally
loaded suction anchor installed in silty sand. Marine Georesources and
Geotechnology 34 (1):87–95.
Kouzer, K. M., and Kumar, J. 2009a. Vertical uplift capacity of two inter-
fering horizontal anchors in sand using an upper bound limit analysis.
Computers and Geotechnics 36 (6):1084–89.
Kouzer, K. M., and Kumar, J. 2009b. Vertical uplift capacity of equally
spaced horizontal strip anchors in sand. International Journal of
Geomechanics, ASCE 9 (5):230–36.
Krishnamurthy, S., and N. S. V. Kameswara Rao. 1975. Effect of submerg-
ence on bearing capacity. Soils and Foundations 15 (3):61–66.
Kumar, J. 2003. Uplift resistance of strip and circular anchors in a two
layered sand. Soils and Foundations 43 (1):101–07.
Kumar, J., and K. M. Kouzer. 2008a. Vertical uplift capacity of horizontal
anchors using upper bound limit analysis and finite elements.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45 (5):698–704.
Kumar, J., and K. M. Kouzer. 2008b. Vertical uplift capacity of a group of
shallow horizontal anchors in sand. Geotechnique 58 (10):821–23.
Liu, J., M. Liu., and Z. Zhu. 2011. Sand deformation around an uplift plate
anchor. Journal of Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE
138 (6):728–37.
MATLAB. 2015. R2015b [Computer software]. Natick, MA: MathWorks.
Merifield, R. S., and S. W. Sloan. 2006. The ultimate pullout capacity of
anchors in frictional soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 43 (8):
852–68.
Merifield, R. S., A. V. Lyamin, and S. W. Sloan. 2006. Three dimensional
lower bound solutions for the stability of plate anchors in sand. Geo-
technique 56 (2): 123–32.
Meyerhof, G. G., and S. I. Adams. 1968. The ultimate uplift capacity of
foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 5 (4):225–44.
Michalowski, R., and L. Shi. 1995. Bearing capacity of footings over two-
layer foundation soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 121
(5):421–28.
Murray, E. J., and J. D. Geddes. 1987. Uplift of anchor plates in sand.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 113 (3):202–15.
Ovesen, N. K. 1981. Centrifuge tests on the uplift capacity of anchors. In
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Stockholm. Vol. 1, pp. 717–722.
Rao, S. N., R. Ravi, and S. V. Prasad. 1997. Pullout behavior of suction
anchors in soft marine clays. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology
15 (2):95–114.
Rowe, R. K., and E. H. Davis. 1982. The behaviour of anchor plates in
clay. Geotechnique 32 (1):25–41.
Sahoo, J. P., and S. Khuntia. 2017. Lower bound solutions for uplift capacity
of strip anchors adjacent to sloping ground in clay. Marine Georesources
and Geotechology 1–12. doi:10.1080/1064119X.2017.1322647.
Sahoo, J. P., and J. Kumar. 2014a. Vertical uplift resistance of two
interfering horizontal anchors in clay. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 140 (4):06013007.
Sahoo, J. P., and J. Kumar. 2014b. Vertical uplift resistance of two closely
spaced horizontal strip anchors embedded in cohesive–frictional
weightless medium. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 51 (2):223–30.
Singh, S. P., D. P. Tripathy, and S. V. Ramaswamy. 2007. Estimation of
uplift capacity of rapidly loaded plate anchors in soft clay. Marine
Georesources and Geotechnology 25:237–49.
Wang, D., Y. Hu, and M. F. Randolph. 2010. Three-dimensional large
deformation finite-element analysis of plate anchors in uniform clay.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136 (2),
355–65.
Zhang, N., H. Wu, J. S. Shen, T. Hino, and Z. Yin. 2016. Evaluation of
the uplift behavior of plate anchor in structured marine clay. Marine
Georesources and Geotechology 35 (6):758–768. doi:10.1080/1064119X.
2016.1240273.