Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf
Abstract
Granular anchors (GAs) can resist pullout/uplift forces, compression forces and also provide ground improvement. Under pullout loading,
a centrally located tendon transmits the applied surface load to the base of the granular column via a base plate attachment, which compresses the
column causing signicant dilation of the granular material to occur, thereby forming the anchor. This paper describes a program of eld testing
and numerical modelling of the pullout resistance of GA installations in overconsolidated clay for the undrained (short term) condition. Pertinent
modes of failure are identied for different column length to diameter (L=D) ratios. The applied pullout load is resisted in shaft capacity for short
GAs or in end-bulging of the granular column for long GAs. In other words, the failure mode is dependent on the column L=D ratio. A novel
modication in which the conventional at base-plate is replaced by a suction cup was shown to signicantly improve the undrained ultimate
pullout capacity of short GAs.
& 2014 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.11.009
0038-0806/& 2014 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1146 B.C. OKelly et al. / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 11451158
tendon transmits the load to the column base via the base plate 2. Experimental programme
attachment. The resulting upward pressure over the column base
compresses the laterally conned granular column against the 2.1. Ground conditions
sidewall of the soil bore, thereby mobilizing an anchor resistance.
Unlike a conventional concrete anchor cast in-situ, pullout Full-scale eld trials were performed on 8 GAs installed in
loading can be applied to the GA immediately after its the upper Brown Dublin Boulder Clay (BrDBC) layer of the
installation. Signicant yielding occurs under pullout loading. Dublin Boulder Clay (DBC) deposit; an intact lodgement till.
For short GAs, this is also accompanied by signicant ground This is the primary supercial deposit within the greater
heave. In contrast, conventional concrete anchors generally fail Dublin region, Ireland. The DBC deposit is heavily over-
by sudden pullout on mobilizing the full shaft capacity, consolidated (it was deposited under ice sheets more than 1 km
assuming the anchor itself remains structurally sound. The in thickness), with reported overconsolidation ratios of 1530.
granular column also acts as an effective drainage system to The DBC material is signicantly stiffer and stronger than
prevent excessive buildup of porewater pressure from occur- other well-characterized tills (e.g. 68 times stiffer than
ring (Sivakumar et al., 2013). typical London Clay and 5 times stiffer than typical Cowden
The success of the GA technique for real applications till from the east coast of the UK), at least for the lower strain
requires a method to reasonably predict the loaddisplacement range (Long and Menkiti, 2007; OKelly, 2014). Further
behavior for pullout loading. Various methods of analyses that details on the geotechnical properties and behavior of the
consider different failure modes, including the vertical slip DBC deposit have been reported by Farrell et al. (1995) and
surface model (friction cylinder method) and block type Long and Menkiti (2007). The results of interface shear tests
failures (e.g. inverted cone, circular arc, or in the case of deep on a novel geogrid in DBC backll material have also been
anchors, truncated cone), exist for the determination of the reported by OKelly and Naughton (2008).
ultimate pullout capacity of strip/plate anchors embedded in The BrDBC material is characterized as stiff to very stiff,
uniform deposits of sand/clay (Meyerhof and Adams, 1968; slightly sandy slightly gravelly silt/clay of low plasticity, with
Ilamparuthi et al., 2002; Merield et al., 2001; Merield and typical liquid limit and plastic limit values of 29% and 16%,
Sloan, 2006; Khatri and Kumar, 2009, Rangari et al., 2013). respectively (Long and Menkiti, 2007), and a high bulk unit
Recently, Miyata and Bathurst (2012a, b) investigated the weight of 22 kN/m3 (Kovacevic et al., 2008). Borehole logs for
tensile reinforcement load/pullout capacity of steel strips used the test site indicated that the near saturated BrDBC stratum at
in reinforced soil walls in Japan. However, the failure modes this location was 1.8 m in depth, with a relatively high stone
for GAs are more complex compared with these scenarios; i.e. content (i.e. particle size 4 20 mm) of typically 515% over
strip/plate anchors embedded in uniform deposits of sand/clay. this depth. A very clayey/silty gravel layer was encountered in
This arises on account of the distinctly different response of some of the boreholes at a depth of 0.8 m below ground
the densied gravel material (used to construct the granular surface level (bgl). The standing groundwater table at the site
column) compared with that of the surrounding native mate- was located at between 1.8 and 2.0 m bgl.
rial. For the GA, the applied pullout loading at the ground Fig. 2 shows strength against depth data determined for the
surface is transferred directly to the tendon base-plate assembly test area using a 20 t cone penetration test (CPT) rig and
B.C. OKelly et al. / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 11451158 1147
Table 1
Anchor installation details.
3. Experimental results 0 0
0 50 100 150
Anchor Displacement (mm)
The measured pullout forces and heave of the ground
surface at 0.3 m from the anchor centerline are plotted against
50 5
axial displacement of the anchor tendon (base plate) in Fig. 3.
Visual observations for anchors GA3 and GA7 having GA1(P)
GA5(P)
L r 3Do (Fig. 3(a)) indicated that substantial heave of the 40 GA4(P)
4
surrounding ground occurred on approaching the pullout GA2(P)
Fig. 4. Mobilization of resistance in GAs under pullout loading (a) Failure in shaft capacity (L o ~ 6Do, Eq. (2)). (b) Small force resisted in shaft resistance over
lower section of long column. (c) Shaft resistance mobilizing upwards along column to resist increasing load. (d) Failure in localized end bulging of column (L o ~
6Do, Eq. (3)). (e) Encasement of lower section of gravel column to impose failure in shaft capacity.
the large relative displacements between the GA and surround- compression (Eq. (3)). Localized bulging for stone columns
ing soil produced signicant increases in the normal stresses under compression loading and long GAs under pullout loading
acting at the soilcolumn interface. Under these conditions, occurs because of lack of sufcient lateral connement at the
some embedment of the gravel particles into the bore sidewall top and bottom ends, respectively, of the granular columns.
was inevitable. Hence, at ultimate pullout capacity, the rupture D2 vbase
surface occurs within the soil next to the column shaft. Pbase 3
4
Signicant remolding occurs within this zone on account of
where D is the diameter of the column bulge; vbase is the
the borehole formation process and the large relative displace-
bearing pressure at the column base which is estimated by
ments occurring between the column shaft and surrounding
vbase 1 sin 0g =1 sin 0g vc N nc surbase , in which 0g
soil during pullout loading. Under these circumstances, an
is the gravels effective friction angle; N nc is a bearing capacity
value of unity is appropriate, as demonstrated by Sivakumar
factor considering local shear failure; vc is the overburden
et al. (2013) from back analysis of the eld performance of
pressure provided by the surrounding ground and surbase is the
GAs installed in aged made ground deposits.
remolded undrained strength in the bulging zone.
For longer GAs, an increasing uplift force applied by the
The local bearing capacity factor is given by Gibson and
anchor tendon to the base plate is rst resisted in shaft
Anderson (1961):
resistance over the lower section of the gravel column
Gur
(Fig. 4(b)). The relative movements between the column and N nc 1 log 4
surrounding soil mean that the shaft resistance initiates from surbase
the column base and develops upwards along the column where Gu is the undrained shear modulus.
length. As the applied force increases further, shaft resistance The overburden pressure is given by vc s L0 , where s is
is mobilized over an increasing distance from the column base the bulk unit weight of the surrounding soil and L0 is the
(Fig. 4(c)), up to a point when structural failure of the gravel overburden depth to the mid-height of the bulge zone.
column occurs by localized end bulging because of a lack of Sivakumar et al. (2013) suggested that a localized enlargement
sufcient lateral connement in the immediate vicinity of the of approximately 10% in the column diameter occurred on
highly stressed column base (Fig. 4(d)). With the buildup in nearing failure in end bulging; i.e. in Eq. (3), D E 1.1Do .
end bulging resistance of the column (accompanied by large Assuming no signicant movement of the gravel material
localized strains), the mobilized shaft resistance reduces back. occurs above the bulging zone and conservation of volume for
In other words, the dominant failure mode is governed by the the dense gravel, it can be determined that the predicted length
columns L=Do ratio. of the bulge zone at pullout failure (typically occurring for
For GAs failing in end bulging, Sivakumar et al. (2013) axial displacements of Do =2) is 2.5Do . Hence the mid-
suggested that the ultimate capacity Pbase can be determined by height of the bulge zone at ultimate pullout capacity occurs for
adapting the method presented by Hughes et al. (1975) for an overburden depth of L0 EL Do 2:5Do =2 L 1:75Do
calculating the ultimate capacity of stone columns under (see Fig. 4(d)).
1150 B.C. OKelly et al. / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 11451158
40 Table 2
Shaft capacity (Eq. 2) Material parameter values.
Material Value
30
End bulging capacity (Eq. 3) GA5 GA8
Surrounding soil
Bulk unit weight, s (kN/m3) 22
GA6 Remolded undrained strength at ground surface level, sur0 (kPa) 64
P*
20 GA1
GA4 Rate of increase in undrained strength with depth, m (kPa/m) 12.5
GA2 Undrained Youngs modulus at ground surface, Euo50 (MPa) 7.0
Rate of increase of Youngs modulus with depth, Euo50 (MPa/m) 1.4
10 GA7 Undrained Poissons ratio, u 0.5
GA3
Coefcient of earth pressure at rest, K0 1.5
Gravel column
0 Bulk unit weight, g (kN/m3) 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Apparent cohesion, c0 (kPa) 0.2
L/D Effective friction angle, 0 g (degree) 42
Dilatency angle, 0 (degree) 10
Fig. 5. Non-dimensional ultimate pullout capacity against column L=D ratio Drained Youngs modulus at ground surface level (MPa) 4.5
for granular anchors. Rate of increase in Youngs modulus with depth (MPa/m) 30
Drained Poissons ratio, 0 0.3
The Youngs modulus values adopted in the numerical Dublin have assumed K0 values for the BrDBC layer ranging
analyses required special attention. When using a constant 1.01.5 in design (Long and Menkiti, 2007). Based on this
stiffness modulus to represent soil behavior (as in the Mohr evidence, a constant K 0 value of 1.5 with depth was adopted in
Coulomb model), one should choose a value that is consistent the present study. For numerical reasons, an undrained
with the stress level and stress path development. The pertinent Poissons ratio value of 0.495 was employed along with an
input parameters are values of undrained (secant) Youngs apparent cohesion c0 value of 0.2 kPa for the gravel.
modulus at 50% shear strength corresponding to ground An axisymmetric model with standard xities and dimen-
surface level (E uo50 ) and the rate of increase in this modulus sions of 2.5 m in radius and 2.5 m in depth was used for all of
with depth (E uo50 ). Both values relate to a reference conn- the simulations. This placed the outer vertical boundary at a
ing pressure of 100 kPa in the triaxial cell since their values distance of at least 11Do from the sidewall of the gravel
tend to increase with conning pressure. Since undisturbed column and allowed freedom for any of a number of possibly
samples were not available, a different approach was adopted mechanisms to develop in the BrDBC material, without
in the determination of these stiffness values. Twelve triaxial signicant inuence from the outer boundary. As for the in-
specimens, each 100 mm in diameter and 200 mm long, were situ condition, the phreatic level was set at 1.8 m bgl.
prepared by standard Proctor-compaction of BrDBC material The calculation scheme was performed in three stages: (a)
that had been recovered at its natural water content from the initial stresses were generated in the 2.5 m thick BrDBC
different depths using the clay cutter tool during borehole layer using the K 0 procedure; (b) the GAs gravel column was
formation. These specimens were tested in unconsolidated wished-in-place; (c) the operation of the anchor during
undrained triaxial compression, with the stiffness values at pullout loading (i.e. uniform upward movement of its rigid
50% shear strength determined from the measured stressstrain base plate) was simulated by means of an upward prescribed-
curves. The values of E uo50 7.0 MPa and Euo50 1.4 MPa/ displacement condition acting over the base of the gravel
m depth were deduced from regression analysis of the stiffness column. The horizontal dimension (width) of the prescribed
values at 50% shear strength plotted against depth for the 12 displacement was set equal to that of the base plates used in the
triaxial specimens. It is acknowledged that this approach eld tests, simulating the initial gap of 10 mm present
cannot reproduce the inherent structure of the ground and between the outer rim of the base plate and the bore sidewall.
may result in (signicantly) lower values of soil stiffness, A tension cutoff value of 0 kPa was specied throughout the
especially at small strains. With mean values of L E1.0 and BrDBC layer; i.e. vacuum cannot develop in the cavity that
surbase E77 kPa for the 8 GAs tested, these stiffness values forms directly beneath the base plate during pullout. A number
indicate Gu E2.8 MPa (from Gu Eu =3), which is consistent of simulations performed for different mesh densities indicated
with the value of 3.0 MPa adopted for the BrDBC layer in the that coarse meshing (with approximately 1100 elements) was
experimental analyses. For the drained Poissons ratio of 0.2 adequate, with pullout failure typically achieved within
reported for BrDBC (Kovacevic et al., 2008), the E uo50 and 5000 steps.
Euo50 values used in the numerical analyses correspond to Simulations were also performed for a modied base-plate
drained modulus values of 5.6 MPa and 1.1 MPa/m depth, arrangement that allowed suctions of up to one atmosphere to
respectively. develop in the cavity formed beneath the base plate during
Considering the very low connement pressure, a relatively pullout. This condition could occur for (near) saturated, low
low drained Youngs modulus of 4.5 MPa was adopted at permeability soils under relatively quick applied loading. Such
ground surface level for the dense gravel column. Its value was an anchor arrangement could involve an inverted cup (bucket)
considered to increase signicantly and proportionately with attachment at the bottom end of the tendon, which would be
depth. The 0g value of 421 adopted is consistent with reported driven (embedded) into the base of the borehole (Fig. 6(a)).
peak values for dense sub-angular gravel. This scenario was modeled by specifying a tension cutoff
The MohrCoulomb model applied in PLAXIS 2D (2010) value of 100 kPa for the BrDBC material. Such an arrange-
does not allow for dilatency cutoff; i.e. end of dilatency occurs ment could also mitigate against the tendency for plastic ow
when the soil reaches the critical state. The effect of dilatency of soil from the bulge zone into the cavity forming at the
angle 0 was investigated by running simulations with input 0 column base by the upward movement of the anchor (Fig. 6
values of 101 and then 51; i.e. moving towards the critical state (b)).
0 01 value. The interactions between the gravel and BrDBC
materials in contact with the top and bottom surfaces, 6. Numerical results
respectively, of the base plate were modeled using an interface
friction coefcient value of 0.67. Fig. 7 shows predicted GA pullout resistances along with
Long and Menkiti (2006, 2007) and Lawler et al. (2011) ground heave responses at 0.3 m from the anchor centerlines.
reported an average coefcient of earth pressure at-rest (K0) Good overall agreement was achieved between the measured
value of 1.5 for the BrDBC layer, determined from high and predicted values of ultimate pullout capacity and the
quality in-situ dilatometer tests. In previous nite element corresponding anchor (base plate) displacements. Deviations
analyses, values of K0 1.5 (Menkiti et al., 2004; Kovacevic between the measured and predicted pullout forces arose due
et al., 2008) and 3.0 (Lawler et al., 2011) have been adopted to the inherent variability/strength heterogeneity of the BrDBC
for the BrDBC layer. In the absence of data, engineers in layer over the test area, with the simulations performed using
1152 B.C. OKelly et al. / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 11451158
Fig. 6. Outline of modied base-plate arrangement for improved GA performance. (a) Proposed installation. (b) At pullout failure in shaft capacity.
representative soil parameter values. Another factor was the and GA8 (L=D of 4.6 and 9.6, respectively). For GA8 (Fig. 9
material model adopted, with the MohrCoulomb (linear- (b)), no increase in normal stress was predicted over the upper
elastic perfectly plastic) representation used for the gravel half of the column length. This can be explained by referring to
column and surrounding soil predicting a stiffer response for Fig. 4(bd). Under upward displacement of the base plate
the groundanchor system and substantially overestimating the caused by increasing pullout load, conned compression of the
ground heave, particularly for experimental GAs having gravel column and dilation of the dense gravel produces some
L=D r 5.5 [i.e. o L=Do cr ]. For GA5 and GA8 (L=D Z 8.7), embedment of the gravel particles into the bore sidewall and a
the measured and predicted ground heave responses were in buildup in normal stress that propagates upwards from the
reasonable agreement, signicantly smaller in magnitude and column base. The pullout load is resisted in shaft capacity
approximately increased in proportion with the anchor dis- mobilized over this lower section of the column until such
placements. Again, the distinctly different ground heave point that the normal stresses become too great, resulting in
responses for experimental anchors having L r 5.5Do and localized end-bulging failure. In this scenario, no increase in
Z 8.7Do indicated different failure mechanisms were at play. normal stress or relative movement (and hence shaft resistance
Fig. 8 shows the extent of the plastic zones predicted in the development) occurs over the upper section of the column
soil surrounding the GAs at ultimate capacity. From these, the length. By contrast, for GA4 (Fig. 9(b)), the normal stresses
different failure mechanisms occurring predominantly in shaft increased and relative movements occurred at the interface for
capacity (Fig. 8(ac)) or in end bulging (Fig. 8(d)) can be the full column length, indicative of full mobilization of the
deduced and are dependent on the column L=D ratio. The shaft capacity.
enlarged plastic zone formed near the base of anchor GA8 Fig. 10 shows the radial expansion of the bore sidewall
(L=D 9.6, Fig. 8(d)) is indicative of failure in end bulging, predicted for different depths (characterized by values of z=Do,
consistent with measured and predicted ground heave move- where z is the distance measured from the column base) along
ments and also with the experimental analyses presented the lower section of the gravel column. Fig. 10(a and b) shows
earlier. For all GAs tested having L r 5.5Do , plastic zones negligible radial expansion of the gravel columns was pre-
developed over the full column length in the soil next to the dicted for GAs having L=D r 3.0. Radial strains r (computed
soilcolumn interface (conrmed by contours of displacement as the radial expansion expressed as a percentage of the GAs
plots), indicative of failure in shaft capacity. The extent of the initial column radius) of less than 2.1% were predicted for the
tension zones at the ground surface extended to 1.5 m anchor displacements ( 45 mm, Fig. 3(a)) corresponding to
( 7Do ) from the anchor centerline. the eld ultimate pullout capacity. However, for GA5 and GA8
Fig. 9 shows contours of normal (radial) stress predicted (L=D Z 8.7, Fig. 10(g and h)), signicant bulging of the
over the column length at ultimate pullout capacity for GA4 columns was predicted over a length of 23Do from the
B.C. OKelly et al. / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 11451158 1153
30 80 60 40
Measured load (ML)
Predicted load (PL)
SC
With suction cup (SC)
Measured heave (MH) 60 30
SC
40 20
ML PL ML
MH MH
0 0 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Anchor Displacement (mm) Anchor Displacement (mm)
Fig. 7. Predictions of pullout resistance and ground heave at 0.3 m from the anchor centreline plotted against anchor displacement, with the plots ordered by
increasing column L=D ratio. Unless otherwise stated, simulations are for a constant 0 101. (a) GA7 (L/D=3.0). (b) GA2 (L/D = 4.4). (c) GA1 (L/D = 5.5). (d)
GA8 (L/D = 9.6).
column base, with r values of 35% predicted for the much the value of r E 10% postulated by Sivakumar et al. (2013)
larger anchor displacements of at least 100 mm require to for failure of the gravel column in end bulging. This is most
mobilize eld ultimate pullout capacity (Fig. 3(b)). For likely explained by the overestimation of the dilatancy for the
intermediate L=D values, some radial expansion of the gravel gravel in the numerical predictions (which were based on a
column was also predicted to occur within 23Do from the constant 0 101), whereas 0 01 at critical state. In other
column base; e.g. r 814% for the anchor displacements words, in the numerical analyses, the ultimate pullout capacity
corresponding to the eld ultimate pullout capacity of GAs 1, 2 and corresponding ground heave movements for these anchors
and 4. However, this r range is not enough to develop were overestimated. This is conrmed by comparing Figs. 10(g
sufcient bulging resistance for failure to occur in end bulging. and h) and 11(a and b), with predicted r values reducing by
12% when the input dilatency angle (which remains xed
6.1. Length of the bulge zone throughout the numerical simulation) was reduced from 101 to 51.
Fig. 12 shows non-dimensional ultimate pullout capacity
For GAs failing predominantly in end bulging at the test site (Pn ) predictions for the 8 GAs plotted against column L=D
(i.e. L=D Z 6.2), the predicted bulge length of 23Do is ratio. The predicted Pn values for GAs failing in shaft capacity
consistent with the value of 2.5Do determined earlier using (i.e. L=D o 6.2) were in good agreement with the trend line
assumptions reported by Sivakumar et al. (2013) regarding end given by Eq. (2), but expressed in non-dimensional form.
bulge formation. Some bulging of the gravel columns was also However, for anchors GA5 and GA8 failing in end bulging
predicted at distances of up to 8Do from the column base, (L=D Z 8.7), the predicted bulging capacities overestimated
although its amount reduced signicantly with decreasing the bulge trend line given by Eq. (3), expressed in non-
depth over this zone. dimensional form. This can be explained by the constant 0
The r values of 35% and predicted for the anchor value of 101 used in these numerical simulations. Since the
displacements corresponding to the eld ultimate pullout dilatency angle is not explicitly considered in Eq. (3), the
capacities of GA5 and GA8 were signicantly greater than agreement between the experimental data and the bulge trend
1154 B.C. OKelly et al. / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 11451158
Fig. 8. Extent of plastic zone predicted at ultimate pullout capacity for a constant 0 101. Note: MohrCoulomb points and tension-cutoff points are indicated by
red shading and hollow boxes, respectively. Black dotted lines dene extents of tension cutoff zones. (a) GA7 (L/D = 3.0). (b) GA4 (L/D = 4.6). (c) GA1 (L/D =
5.5). (d) GA8 (L/D = 9.6). (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
line was good (Fig. 5). In practice, however, with large benet achieved for GAs failing in end bulging was minor,
localized deformations occurring during column end-bulging, with negligible improvement achieved for L=D Z 10. Further
the 0 value for the gravel reduces towards the critical state investigations and validation using experimental eld trials are
0 01 value. In order to validate this hypothesis, a number of necessary to conrm these ndings.
the simulations were repeated using a lower (constant) 0 value
of 51 (e.g. see Fig. 7(c and d)), which was found to produce 7. Discussion
much better agreement with Eq. (3) trendline (see Fig. 12).
Using experimental and numerical means, this paper has
6.2. Modied anchor base-plate for improved pullout capacity conrmed that failure of GAs predominantly occurs in shaft
capacity or in end bulging, depending on the columns L=D
Fig. 12 demonstrates the effect of developing suction of one ratio. Setting Pshaf t Pbase (Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively) and
atmosphere in the cavity that forms directly beneath the base disregarding the small contribution of the columns self-weight
plate during pullout loading (see 'With suction cup' data in component (i.e. second term in Eq. (2)), the transition between
gure). The predicted improvement in ultimate pullout capa- failure in shaft capacity and in end bulging occurs for
city was found to decay exponentially with the column L=D
Lcr D vbase
ratio (Fig. 13). From the numerical analyses, the proposed 5
modication of the base-plate arrangement produced signi- Do 4 sur
cant increases in the undrained ultimate pullout capacity for with vbase and hence Lcr =Do dependent on 0g , surbase and Gu.
short GAs; e.g. between 30% (L 2.5Do ) and 6% Note that the value of Lcr =Do increases signicantly with 0g ,
(L 6.2Do ) for GAs failing in shaft capacity. However the but only marginally with the Gu=surbase ratio.
B.C. OKelly et al. / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 11451158 1155
8. Conclusions
Fig. 10. Predicted radial expansion of gravel column for different z=Do; where z is the distance from the column base. Unless otherwise stated, simulations are for a
constant 0 101. (a) GA3 (L/D = 2.5). (b) GA7 (L/D = 3.0). (c) GA2 (L/D = 4.4). (d) GA4 (L/D = 4.6). (e) GA6 (L/D = 4.8). (f) GA1 (L/D = 5.5). (g) GA5 (L/D
= 8.7). (h) GA8 (L/D = 9.6).
B.C. OKelly et al. / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 11451158 1157
40
40
30 30
z=D
20 2D
20
10 3D
10
5D
8D
0
0 50 100 150 200
Anchor Displacement (mm) 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
L/D
40
Fig. 13. Predicted increase in ultimate pullout capacity for suction of one
atmosphere developed beneath the anchor base plate (assuming constant
0 101 for gravel column).
Lateral Expansion (mm)
30
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Character- Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, Paper number 2-50, 8 pp. http://www.cpt14.
isation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils Taylor and Francis, com/cpt14-papers, http://www.tara.tcd.ie/handle/2262/68023.
London, UK, vol. 3, pp. 20032045. Phani Kumar, B.R., Ramachandra Rao, N., 2000. Increasing pull-out capacity
Miyata, Y., Bathurst, R.J., 2012a. Analysis and calibration of default steel strip of granular pile anchors in reactive soils using base geosynthetics. Can.
pullout models used in Japan. Soils Found. 52 (3), 481497. Geotech. J. 37 (4), 870881.
Miyata, Y., Bathurst, R.B., 2012b. Measured and predicted loads in steel strip Phanikumar, B.R., Sharma, R.S., Srirama Rao, A., Madhav, M.R., 2004.
reinforced c soil walls in Japan. Soils Found. 52 (1), 117. Granular pile anchor foundation (GPAF) system for improving the
Menkiti, C.O., Long, M., Kovacevic, N., Edmonds, H.E., Milligan, G.W.E., engineering behaviour of expansive clay beds. Geotech. Test. J. 27 (3),
Potts, D.M., 2004. Trial excavation for cut and cover tunnel construction in 19.
glacial till: a case study from Dublin. In: R.J. Jardine, D.M. Potts, Phanikumar, B.R., Srirama Rao, A., Suresh, K., 2008. Field behaviour of
K.G. Higgins, (Eds.), Skempton Memorial Conference: Advances in Geotech- granular pile-anchors in reactive soils. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground
nical Engineering, Thomas Telford, London, UK, vol. 2, pp. 10901104. Improv. 161 (4), 199206.
Merield, R.S., Sloan, S.W., Yu, H.S., 2001. Stability of plate anchors in Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M., 2013. Seismic uplift capacity
undrained clay. Gotechnique 51 (2), 114153. of shallow horizontal strip anchor under oblique load using pseudo-
Merield, R.S., Sloan, S.W., 2006. The ultimate pullout capacity of anchors in dynamic approach. Soils Found. 53 (5), 692707.
frictional soils. Can. Geotech. J. 43 (8), 852868. Sharma, R.S., Phanikumar, B.R., Nagendra, G., 2004. Compressive load
Meyerhof, G.G., Adams, J.I., 1968. The ultimate uplift capacity of foundations. response of granular piles reinforced with geogrids. Can. Geotech. J. 41
Can. Geotech. J. 5 (4), 225244. (1), 187192.
OKelly, B.C., Naughton, P.J., 2008. On the interface shear resistance of a Sivakumar, V., OKelly, B.C., Madhav, M.R., Moorhead, C., Rankin, B.,
novel geogrid with in-plane drainage capability. Geotext. Geomembr. 26 2013. Granular anchors under vertical loading/axial pull. Can. Geotech. J.
(4), 357362. 50 (2), 123132.
OKelly, B.C., Sivakumar, V., Brinkgreve, R.B.J., 2013. Uplift resistance of Srirama Rao, A., Phanikumar, B.R., Dayakar Babu, R., Suresh, K., 2007.
granular anchors in clay under undrained condition. In: Proceedings of Pullout behavior of granular pile-anchors in expansive clay beds in situ.
the First Workshop on SoilStructure Interaction organised by the Marie Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (5), 531538.
Curie IAPP project NOTES, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Xu, H.-y., Chen, L.-z., Deng, J.-l., 2014. Uplift tests of jet mixing anchor pile.
http://www.tara.tcd.ie/handle/2262/66938. Soils Found. 54 (2), 168175.
OKelly, B.C., 2014. CPT testing in Dublin Boulder Clay. In: Proceedings of
the Third International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT14),