Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

648

Experimental investigation of the uplift behaviour

of circular plate anchors embedded in sand
K. Ilamparuthi, E.A. Dickin, and K. Muthukrisnaiah

Abstract: An experimental investigation of the uplift behaviour of relatively large scale model circular plate anchors up
to 400 mm in diameter embedded in loose, medium-dense, and dense dry sand is described. Uplift capacity is strongly
influenced by anchor diameter, embedment ratio, and sand density. In tests on shallow half-cut models, a gently curved
rupture surface emerged from the top edge of the anchor to the sand surface at approximately φ/2 to the vertical,
where φ is the angle of shearing resistance. For a deep anchor, a balloon-shaped rupture surface emerged at 0.8φ to the
vertical immediately above the anchor and was confined within the sand bed. The load–displacement behaviour of full-
shaped models was three-phase and two-phase for shallow and deep anchors, respectively. Alternative methods of deter-
mining the critical embedment ratio are considered, and values of 4.8, 5.9, and 6.8 are proposed for loose, medium-
dense, and dense sand, respectively. Empirical equations are presented which yield breakout factors similar to those
from many published laboratory and field studies.

Key words: circular anchor, uplift capacity, sand, critical embedment ratio, failure mechanism.

Résumé : On décrit une étude expérimentale du comportement en arrachement de plaques d'ancrage circulaires
modèles à échelle relativement grande ayant des diamètres jusqu'à 400 mm enfouies dans un sable sec lâche, moyenne-
ment dense et dense. La résistance à l'arrachement est fortement influencée par le diamètre de l'ancrage, le rapport
d'enfouissement et la densité du sable. Dans des essais peu profonds avec demi-modèles, une surface de rupture légère-
ment courbée est apparue en partant du bord supérieur de l'ancrage jusqu'à la surface du sable à environ φ/2 par rap-
port à la verticale. Pour un ancrage profond, une surface de rupture en forme de ballon est apparue à 0,8φ par rapport
a la verticale immédiatement au-dessus de l'ancrage et était confinée à l'intérieur du lit de sable. Le comportement
charge-déformation des modèles à pleine géométrie était de trois phases et de deux phases pour les ancrages peu
profonds et profonds respectivement. On considère des méthodes alternatives pour déterminer le rapport critique
d'enfouissement et on propose des valeurs de 4,8, 5,9 et 6,8 pour le sable lâche, moyennement dense et dense respecti-
vement. On présente des équations empiriques qui fournissent les mêmes facteurs d'arrachement que ceux donnés par
plusieurs études publiées, réalisées en laboratoire et sur le terrain.

Mots clés : ancrage circulaire, capacité d'arrachement, sable, rapport critique d'enfouissement, mécanisme de rupture.
[Traduit par la Rédaction] Ilamparuthi et al. 664

Introduction standing and guyed lattice towers, television and transmis-

The intensive activities of the petroleum industry have led
to an increased demand for offshore platforms, which can
operate even in considerable depths of water. In deep waters,
anchors are required to hold offshore platforms in position
by transmitting the uplift forces to the ocean bed. The moor-
ing systems for floating bodies and submerged platforms and
oil or gas pipelines laid on the seabed require anchors of dif-
ferent types. Four concrete mushroom anchors each of 550
kN capacity were used in Rhode Island (Tudor 1967). For
tension-leg platforms, vertical pulls of the order of 20 000 –
70 000 kN were involved (LeTirant 1979), the foundations
for such platforms having also received more recent atten-
tion from Narasimha Rao et al. (1996). Anchors are also of-
ten used for a variety of structures on land, such as free-
sion towers, tension cables for suspension bridges, and tent-
type roofs. Structures of this type may impose particularly
large uplift forces on their foundations when subjected to
wind loading.
Review of design methods
Anchor types include circular, rectangular, square, and
screw anchors, belled piles or piers, and mushroom, pyra-
mid, and grillage foundations, all of which rely on the uplift
resistance of the surrounding soil. Whatever the geometry,
ultimate pullout resistances have usually been computed
from plate anchor theory. However, early empirical design
methods were primarily based on large-scale field tests on
foundations for transmission line towers (e.g., Giffels et al.

Received 9 January 2001. Accepted 4 January 2002. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cgj.nrc.ca on 16 May 2002.
K. Ilamparuthi. Division of Soil Mechanics, Anna University, Chennai 600 025, India.
E.A. Dickin.1 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3GQ, U.K.
K. Muthukrisnaiah. Ocean Engineering Centre, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai 600 036, India.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: dickin@liv.ac.uk).

Can. Geotech. J. 39: 648–664 (2002) DOI: 10.1139/T02-005 © 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:19 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Ilamparuthi et al. 649

1960; Ireland 1963; Adams and Hayes 1967). Most current Fig. 1. Assumed failure surfaces: (a) vertical slip surface model,
design methods are based on either assumed or observed (b) soil cone model, and (c) circular arc model.
failure surfaces in small-scale model tests at unit gravity and
usually employ a limit equilibrium approach. These methods
can be grouped conveniently according to the failure mecha-
nism adopted.
In the vertical slip surface model (VSSM), or friction cyl-
inder method (Majer 1955) (Fig. 1a), the capacity is com-
puted from the weight of soil within the cylindrical failure
surface directly above the anchor and the frictional resis-
tance along this surface. Several researchers have reported
this method to be conservative.
Mors (1959) assumed a truncated cone extending above
the base of the anchor with an apex angle of 90 + φ, where φ
is the angle of shearing resistance of the soil (Fig. 1b), the
pullout capacity being assumed equal to the weight of the
soil within the truncated cone. Frictional resistance acting
along the failure surface was ignored. Mors’ method is usu-
ally conservative for shallow anchors but overpredicts pull-
out capacity for deeper anchors. Several investigators (Balla
1961; Macdonald 1963; Sutherland 1965; Downs and
Chieurzzi 1966; Clemence and Veesaert 1977; Sutherland et
al. 1982; Saran et al. 1986; Murray and Geddes 1987; Ghaly
et al. 1991; Ilamparuthi and Muthukrishnaiah 1999) have
based theories on unit gravity tests in the laboratory on half-
cut and full-shape models. Macdonald (1963) developed the-
ories for shallow anchors, assuming a truncated cone in-
clined at θ = φ/2 to the vertical, whereas for deep anchors, a
cylindrical failure surface was assumed, having a diameter
equal to 1.75D, where D is the anchor diameter.
Clemence and Veesaert (1977) approximated the observed
failure surface to an inverted truncated cone, with an apex an-
gle equal to φ, extending upwards from the anchor base. The
pullout capacity was the sum of the weight of soil within this
cone and the shearing resistance along the failure surface. An-
chors with H/D > 5 (where H is the depth of embedment) ex-
hibited failure surfaces that extended 2D–3D above the
anchor, but not to the soil surface, as for shallower anchors.
Sutherland (1965) found the failure mode varied with
sand density and also concluded that Balla’s (1961) analyti-
cal approach was only accurate for loose to medium-dense
sands. Sutherland et al. (1982) proposed a simplified theory
for shallow and deep anchor conditions by considering plane
rupture surfaces, where θ was a function of relative density for shallow anchors in loose and medium-dense sands show
and φ. Saran et al. (1986) assumed a truncated conical failure that θ > 2φ/3 and is almost independent of density for H/D ≤
surface and developed load–deformation characteristics for 4. Further, for deep anchors, the θ values appear to be much
shallow anchors from a hyperbolic stress–strain curve. higher than the reported value of 2φ/3. Deep anchor behav-
Mitsch and Clemence (1985) presented results of labora- iour occurred if H/D > 7, 9, and 11, with the failure surface
tory and field investigations on triple helix anchors which confined within 4D, 5D, and 6D above the anchor for loose,
showed the development of a cylindrical failure surface be- medium-dense, and dense sands, respectively.
low the top helical plate, above which the failure surface was Half-cut model tests by Balla (1961) on mushroom foun-
dependent on H, the installation method, and soil relative dations revealed a vertical rupture surface at the upper sur-
density. Bobbitt and Clemence (1987) also considered a face of the foundation, curving outwards and intersecting the
truncated, cone-shaped failure surface with θ = φ/2 for heli- ground surface at approximately 45° – φ/2. Balla simplified
cal anchors. Murray and Geddes (1987) initially considered this surface to a circular arc with radius (H – h)/sin (45° +
a curved failure surface in their limit equilibrium analyses φ/2), where h is the anchor thickness (Fig. 1c), and em-
but derived a final equation for a plane rupture surface with ployed Kotter’s differential equation in the computation of
θ = φ/2. Ghaly et al. (1991) categorized failure mechanisms pullout capacity. A similar surface was observed by Baker
around their model screw anchors as shallow, transitional, and Kondner (1966) for anchors with H/D < 6.
and deep and found that θ varied with H/D but was ≤2 φ/3 Mariupol’skii (1965) described deep anchor behaviour as
for deep anchors, irrespective of H/D. However, their results tunnelling through the soil (punching shear). Matsuo (1967,

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:19 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
650
Fig. 2. Schematic uplift testing arrangement. All dimensions in millimetres. 1, test tank (1.0 m × 0.5 m × 1.2 m; for half-cut model
anchors); 2, model anchor; 3, sand bed; 4, chain–stem; 5, gearbox; 6, load cell; 7, loading yoke; 8, LVDT; 9, magnetic stand; 10,
frame for sand raining; 11, pulley block for sand raining; 12, loading frame.
1968) approximated the rupture surface to a logarithmic
spiral and a tangential plane surface at 45° – φ/2 to the soil
surface. Meyerhof and Adams (1968) observed that φ/4 < θ <
φ/2, taking an average value in their analyses. They also pro-
posed separate analyses for shallow and deep anchors.
Khadilkar et al. (1971) also assumed a logarithmic spiral
rupture surface and developed an analysis using Kotter’s
equation for the shearing resistance along the curved sur-
face. However, Murray and Geddes (1987) commented that
this technique is invalid because it does not produce the fric-
tional forces in the required direction. Chattopadhyay and
Pise (1986) assumed an exponential equation for the failure
surface which satisfied the boundary conditions proposed by
Balla. They also applied the theoretical model to deep an-
chors with H/D as high as 10–12, for which their analysis
may not be valid. Ghaly and Hanna (1994a, 1994b) at-
tempted to refine their earlier theoretical work by conduct-
ing failure mechanism tests in sand beds incorporating
coloured layers. They employed the Chattopadhyay and Pise
logarithmic spiral rupture surface in limit equilibrium analy-
ses for screw anchors, using Kotter’s equation to determine
the shearing resistance along the curved surface. Sutherland
(1988) discussed the relative merits of some of these tech-
niques in his Rankine lecture, and Dickin and Leung (1990)
I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:19 AM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002
have also compared many of these design methods. There is no
entirely satisfactory theory for assessing the breakout capacity
of anchors, mainly due to the difficulties in defining the shape
of failure surface in terms of geometric and soil parameters.
Laboratory investigation
The study reported includes tests on half-cut and full-shaped
rigid circular anchors, some much larger than those tested in
many previous investigations which involved models with di-
ameters in the range between 25 and 75 mm. The potential
scale error associated with laboratory tests on small-scale mod-
els at unit gravity demonstrated, for example, by Dickin (1988)
and Dickin and Leung (1990, 1992), who reported centrifugal
model studies of rectangular anchor plates and belled piles, re-
spectively, is therefore addressed to some extent. The influence
of anchor diameter, depth of embedment, and density of the
sand bed are examined in detail.
Experimental facilities
A large 100 kN capacity loading frame was designed spe-
cifically for the present investigation. The setup shown sche-
matically in Fig. 2 consisted of two portal frames, fabricated
© 2002 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Ilamparuthi et al.
Table 1. Properties of Palar River sand.
Parameter Value
Uniformity coefficient, Cu 2.24
Coefficient of curvature, Cc 0.96
Effective grain size, d10 (mm) 0.49
Maximum dry unit weight, γ dmax (kN/m3) 18.2
Minimum dry unit weight, γ dmin (kN/m3) 14.3
Maximum void ratio, emax 0.86
Minimum void ratio, emin 0.46
Specific gravity of grains, Gs 2.66
from mild steel I sections and channels, connected at the top
by two steel I sections. Each portal frame was braced at
suitable elevations and connected to the other at several lev-
els. Pullout load, Q, was applied through a loading yoke
consisting of upper and lower steel plates 15 and 19.5 mm
thick, respectively, connected by six 25 mm diameter steel
rods, threaded at each end, to enable adjustment of the dis-
tance between the plates depending on the required maxi-
mum anchor displacement. The threaded rods also facilitated
adjustment of the steel plates to ensure a truly vertical an-
chor pull effected through a 12 mm diameter chain. Failure
mechanism tests on half-cut models were conducted in a
tank with inner dimensions of 1.0 m × 0.5 m × 1.2 m with
8 mm thick steel plates forming the sides and base and a
20 mm thick perspex front face to allow observation of the
rupture surfaces. Figure 2 shows this tank in position. A sec-
ond rigid cylindrical mild steel tank, 1.5 m in diameter and
1.5 m deep with a 8 mm wall thickness, was used for tests
on full-shape (three-dimensional) models. This tank was
stiffened both at the base and the top, and its inner face was
graduated at 50 mm vertical intervals to aid sand bed prepa-
ration. Container dimensions were based on previous pub-
lished research such that the rupture surfaces for the anchor
diameters at the embedments tested would be well within
the tank boundaries.
Model anchors
All model anchors were fabricated from 6 mm thick mild
steel plate. Two semicircular (half-cut) anchors 100 and
150 mm in diameter, each connected to a steel stem 12 mm
in diameter and 1 m in length, were used in half-cut model
tests. This stem was connected to the chain to effect pullout.
Circular plate anchors having diameters of 100, 125, 150,
200, 300, and 400 mm were used in the main test series on
full-shaped models and were connected directly to the chain.
Sand properties and bed preparation
Uniformly graded medium Palar River sand with proper-
ties given in Table 1 was used. Preparation of homogeneous
sand beds was achieved by controlled pouring and tamping
techniques, which provided reproducible densities. Con-
trolled pluviation in tests on full-shaped models was carried
out using a 1.45 m diameter sieve with 18 mm diameter
holes at 30 mm centres. Medium-dense and dense sand beds
were prepared in layers using a 25 N drop weight falling on
a 150 mm square mild steel plate. Average unit weights γ ′
were 15.5, 16.5, and 17.0 kN/m3 for loose, medium-dense,
I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:20 AM
651
Fig. 3. Relationship between unit weight and angle of shearing
resistance of dry sand.
and dense conditions, respectively. The corresponding den-
sity indices were 39, 62, and 74%. The relationship between
φ and γ ′ from direct shear tests at normal stresses ranging
from 10 to 50 kN/m2, to simulate the low stress levels in and
around the model anchors, is shown in Fig. 3. Friction an-
gles for the sand at the three densities were 34.5, 38.5, and
43°, respectively.
Instrumentation and data acquisition system
A 50 kN capacity strain gauge type load cell was used to
record the pullout load to an accuracy of 100 N in the range
up to 25 kN. The loading frame and yoke arrangement was
designed such that the load cell was always compressive,
though the anchor tie rod was in tension. Vertical anchor dis-
placement was measured using a linear variable displace-
ment transducer (LVDT) with a range of ±250 mm, to an
accuracy of 0.2 mm in the range up to 50 mm. The data ac-
quisition system consisted of a carrier frequency amplifier,
analog–digital converter, Apple computer, and printer unit.
Failure mechanism tests on half-cut model
anchors
Thirteen tests were carried out on half-cut models in air-
dried sand prepared in 32.5 and 65 mm layers for dense and
loose beds, respectively, with a sand depth >D below the an-
chor. Preparation of the sand bed was continued up to the re-
quired depth, a horizontal line of black beads being placed
flush with the perspex face between each layer of sand. Tests
were carried out at a displacement rate of 0.5 mm/min, and
output from transducers was recorded at preset time inter-
vals. The movement of the beads was traced at various stages.
Uplift tests on full-shaped model anchors
Air-dried sand was prepared in 100 and 50 mm layers for
loose and dense sand beds, respectively, the minimum sand
depth below the anchor base being 1.5D. The sand bed uni-
formity was verified by conducting cone penetration tests at
different locations. Uplift tests were displacement controlled
at 0.5 mm/min, the pullout load and displacement being re-
corded as in half-cut model tests. A total of 98 experiments
© 2002 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
652
Fig. 4. Delineation of rupture surface in half-cut model test on shallow anchor in dense sand.
were conducted on six anchor diameters at various
embedments up to 1.2 m.
Results of failure mechanism tests
Typical failure mechanisms around shallow and deep an-
chors are illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. Displace-
ments of the sand particles above a shallow 150 mm
diameter half-cut anchor embedded at 306 mm in dense sand
(H/D = 2) are presented in Fig. 4, which illustrates two
stages of pullout. At an anchor displacement of 11 mm, the
displacements of sand particles up to about 100 mm above
the centre of the anchor were greater than that of the anchor
itself. Above this level, particle displacements were less than
that of the anchor. When the anchor displacement was
22.5 mm, marginally higher particle displacements were
found up to 70 mm above the anchor. The vertical displace-
ment of soil particles on any horizontal plane above the an-
chor decreased radially from its centre, reducing rapidly
close to the rupture surface. The rupture surface emerged
from the top edge of the anchor, expanding radially towards
the sand surface with a gentle convex upward curvature. It
could reasonably be approximated to a plane rupture surface,
at an angle of 22° to the vertical, which is close to φ/2 and
in agreement with observations of Clemence and Veesaert
(1977) and Mitsch and Clemence (1985). The surface heave
extended about 1.25D from the stem. Figure 5 shows the
displacement pattern for a 100 mm diameter anchor embed-
ded more deeply at 691 mm (H/D = 6.9) in dense sand. The
patterns obtained at an anchor displacement of 30 mm, as
against 18.5 mm at peak pullout load, show that vertical dis-
placements of the sand particles were smaller than those of
the anchor, decreasing rapidly with an increase in the dis-
I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:20 AM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002
tance above the anchor. Vertical displacements were zero at
about 2.8D above the anchor, and radial displacements were
relatively larger than those for shallower anchors. A plane
rupture surface inclined at 35° (about 0.8 φ) to the vertical
emerged from the top edge of the anchor up to a height of
1.5D, above which it was “balloon” shaped, extending about
2.9D and 1.6D in the vertical and radial directions, respec-
tively. The half-cut model tests have been well documented
elsewhere (Ilamparuthi and Muthukrishnaiah 1999) and fur-
ther demonstrate the distinct differences in shallow and deep
behaviour illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5. Although this phe-
nomenon has been reported in many investigations, it has
rarely been studied in such detail. The embedment ratio at
which this change in behaviour takes place has been defined
as the critical embedment ratio (H/D)CR. Critical ratios of
4.9, 5.8, and 6.9 were estimated for the model anchors in the
loose, medium-dense, and dense sand beds studied. The re-
sults also show that, for shallow anchors, the rupture surface
subtends an angle of φ/2 ± 2° with the vertical, φ/2 – 2° in
the case of loose sand and φ/2 + 2° in the case of dense
sand. The deviation from φ/2 increases as the embedment ra-
tio decreases.
Load–displacement behaviour in full-shape
tests
Typical load–displacement relationships for full-shaped
anchors are presented in Fig. 6. The relationship for a
300 mm diameter anchor embedded at 903 mm in loose sand
in Fig. 6a shows a rapid load increase and a peak of 10.1 kN
after 14.4 mm displacement. The load then fluctuated and
reduced significantly, remaining more or less constant at
© 2002 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Ilamparuthi et al. 653

Fig. 5. Delineation of rupture surface in half-cut model test on Fig. 6. Relationship between pullout load and displacement for
deep anchor in dense sand. shallow (a) and deep (b) circular plate anchors in sand.

higher displacements (residual behaviour). This shallow

anchor (H/D = 3) therefore exhibited three-phase behaviour,
similar to that of the stress–strain curve of dense sand cate-
gorized by general shear failure. The phases are as follows:
(i) pre-peak behaviour, exhibiting a rapid increase in load;
(ii) post-peak behaviour, exhibiting a rapid load reduction
with increase in displacement; and (iii) residual behaviour,
associated with a moderate decrease in load at large dis-
placements.
Figure 6a also shows the load–displacement relationship
for the same anchor at a depth of 885 mm in dense sand.
Three-phase behaviour is again present, with a larger, more anchor embedded at 1185 mm (H/D = 7.9) in dense sand are
pronounced peak load (14.3 kN) and slightly larger displace- also presented in Fig. 6b. The peak load (31.9 kN) is greater
ment (17.2 mm) compared with that for loose sand. The than that in loose sand for a similar displacement (31.9 mm).
peak pullout load is about 40% higher than that in loose The peak load is nearly 2.5 times that in loose sand, com-
sand. The behaviour of a 150 mm diameter anchor embed- pared with 1.4 times that for an anchor with H/D = 3. The
ded at 1205 mm (H/D = 8) in loose sand is shown in Fig. 6b. fluctuations in the load–displacement relationship at larger
The load increases gradually up to 13.1 kN after 28 mm dis- displacements are attributed to collapse and flow of the sand
placement, decreasing very slowly thereafter with great load from above the anchor towards the gap created below it.
fluctuations. Two-phase behaviour is observed, characterized This phenomenon (progressive failure) occurs slowly and
by gradually increasing pre-peak behaviour followed by a has often been reported previously, e.g., Rowe and Davis
very slowly decreasing residual post-peak behaviour. This is (1982) and Dickin (1988). Results for anchors in dense sand
similar to the stress–strain behaviour of loose sand, catego- alone are summarized in Table 2 for brevity. Full details of
rized by local shear failure. Results from tests on the same the test programme are available elsewhere (Ilamparuthi 1991).

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:21 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

654 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002

Table 2. Results of experiments on circular plate anchors embedded in dense, dry sand.
Anchor diameter, Embedment depth, Peak load, Corresponding Breakout
D (mm) H (mm) H/D Qf (kN) displacement, δ (mm) factor, Nqf
100 84.5 0.85 0.039 — 3.47
100 190.4 1.90 0.181 1.25 7.13
100 287.0 2.87 0.466 2.50 12.15
100 390.8 3.91 0.990 4.94 18.98
100 474.8 4.75 1.569 7.37 24.74
100 597.4 5.97 2.843 12.25 35.64
100 690.8 6.91 4.461 15.90 48.36
100 791.5 7.92 7.647 18.75 72.36
100 979.0 9.79 13.730 22.06 104.96
100 1197.0 11.97 22.940 24.56 143.50
125 180.2 1.44 0.186 1.10 4.96
125 284.3 2.27 0.519 2.50 8.76
125 491.9 3.94 2.010 7.37 19.59
125 739.8 5.92 6.274 17.00 40.65
125 789.7 6.30 8.333 19.68 50.78
125 988.8 7.91 16.860 26.50 81.75
125 1083.0 8.66 21.570 28.13 95.47
150 301.6 2.01 0.723 2.44 7.98
150 296.2 1.98 0.674 2.45 7.58
150 420.0 2.80 1.470 6.56 11.65
150 583.4 3.89 3.431 11.25 19.57
150 693.1 4.62 5.441 14.68 26.13
150 882.4 5.88 11.960 20.80 45.12
150 898.6 5.99 12.160 24.50 45.04
150 1184.4 7.90 31.860 31.87 89.55
200 405.2 2.03 1.804 4.68 8.34
200 485.3 2.43 2.353 6.56 9.08
200 698.9 3.49 6.473 12.18 17.34
200 905.1 4.53 12.450 — 25.76
200 1001.1 5.01 19.020 22.50 35.57
200 1189.0 5.95 36.760 31.86 57.89
300 278.4 0.92 1.235 2.45 3.69
300 429.5 1.43 2.500 4.88 4.84
300 564.9 1.88 4.706 8.50 6.93
300 884.6 2.95 14.310 17.20 13.47
300 995.7 3.32 20.590 17.15 17.21
400 187.2 0.47 0.824 1.61 2.06
400 390.2 0.98 2.745 3.92 3.29
400 554.7 1.39 5.980 6.93 5.05
400 787.7 1.97 13.333 10.98 7.92

Variation of peak pullout load and
displacement with depth of embedment
The variation of peak pullout load Qf with depth of
embedment for all tests on anchors in dense sand is pre-
sented in Fig. 7. The peak load increases at a higher rate
with increased depth of embedment for a given anchor diam-
eter. A similar, but less pronounced trend is found for an-
chors in loose and medium-dense sand. For example, the
peak pullout loads for an anchor with D = 100 mm in loose,
medium-dense, and dense sand are 2.0, 2.6, and 3.0 kN, re-
spectively, at an embedment depth of 600 mm and 8.8, 15.3,
and 23.2 kN, respectively, at an embedment depth of
1200 mm. Thus the peak pullout load in dense sand is 50%
greater than that in loose sand at the shallower depth (H/D =
6) and 2.6 times that at the greater depth (H/D = 12). Dis-
placements corresponding to peak loads in tests on 100 mm
diameter anchors in loose and dense sand are shown in
Fig. 8. Similar trends were obtained for larger models. At
shallow and intermediate depths the displacements are es-
sentially the same, whereas at greater depths (H/D > 6) dis-
placements in dense sand are significantly greater than those
in loose sand.
Variation of peak pullout load with anchor
diameter
Peak pullout loads for tests in dense sand shown in Fig. 9
increase linearly with an increase in D for each depth of
embedment H for the range of diameters studied. The rate

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:21 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Ilamparuthi et al.
Fig. 7. Variation of peak pullout load with depth of embedment
for circular plate anchors in dense sand.
Fig. 8. Variation of displacement at peak pullout load with
embedment ratio.
increases with an increase in H, but Qf is not a simple multi-
ple of D. A typical variation of interpolated peak pullout
loads for various diameters at a depth of 750 mm is pre-
sented in Fig. 10 to illustrate the influence of density.
I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:22 AM
655
Fig. 9. Variation of peak pullout load with anchor diameter in
dense sand.
Fig. 10. Influence of density on peak pullout load for various
anchor diameters.
Dimensionless breakout factor
The peak pullout load, Qf, is commonly expressed as a
dimensionless breakout factor, Nqf, defined as follows:
Qf
[1] N qf =
γ ′ AH
where A is the plan area of the anchor (= πD2/4), and γ′ is
the effective unit weight of the sand bed (assumed homoge-
neous). Breakout factors for anchors in dense sand, pre-
sented in Fig. 11, suggest a single relationship between the
Nqf and H/D may be assumed, irrespective of the relative
magnitudes of H and D. This indicates that, for a given den-
sity of soil, Nqf is dependent only on H/D and is relatively
unaffected by D for the range of anchor diameters investi-
gated. Similar relationships are obtained for anchors in
© 2002 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
656
Fig. 11. Relationship between breakout factor and embedment
ratio for circular plate anchors in dense sand.
Fig. 12. Variation of breakout factor with the angle of shearing
resistance of sand for various embedment ratios.
medium-dense and loose sand. It should be noted, however,
that in comparing tests on much smaller 25–50 mm models
with 1 m prototypes, centrifuge model tests (e.g., Ovesen
1981; Dickin 1988) have shown that a reduction in Nqf does
occur with an increase in D. The breakout factor tends to be-
come asymptotic to the embedment ratio (H/D) axis beyond
I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:23 AM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002
Fig. 13. Determination of critical embedment ratio, (H/D)CR,
from breakout factor for circular plate anchors in dense sand.
H/D = 11 and H/D = 10 for medium-dense and loose sands,
respectively, but is still increasing at H/D = 12 for dense
sand. Figure 12 shows the variation of Nqf with φ for various
H/D values. The relationships are linear but exhibit higher
rates of increase of Nqf with φ, the higher the H/D value. The
breakout factor for any φ and H/D for the range studied (up
to H/D = 12) may therefore be determined. The breakout
factor is greater at higher soil densities for a given anchor
embedment ratio. For example, an increase in φ value from
33.5 to 43° increases the breakout factor by 40 and 100% at
embedment ratios of 4.2 and 8.4, respectively. The relatively
insignificant effect of density at smaller embedment ratios
increases at greater depth, where the breakout factor in
dense sand is up to three times that in loose sand.
The critical depth can be obtained from a logarithm–loga-
rithm plot between Nqf and H/D as shown in Fig. 13 for dense
sand. There are changes in slope at embedment ratios of 1.6
and 6.6. The significance of the change of slope at H/D = 1.6
is not yet understood. However, the change of slope at H/D =
6.6 is broadly consistent with the critical embedment ratio ob-
served in half-cut model tests (H/D = 6.9) and the change in
the load–displacement behaviour (see Fig. 6) at about H/D =
6.3. Critical embedment ratios were also determined in plots
similar to Fig. 13 for medium-dense and loose sand beds, and
respective values of 5.5 and 4.5 were obtained. Critical
embedment ratios of 5.9 and 4.0 were estimated for medium-
dense and loose sands, respectively, from the shape of the
load–displacement relationship. By comparison, the H/D
value at which the Nqf tends to become constant, a criterion
previously used to define critical depth, is about twice these
embedment ratios. Alternative methods of determining
(H/D)CR based on the displacement corresponding to peak
pullout load and surface heave are examined later.
© 2002 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Ilamparuthi et al. 657

Table 3. Comparison of breakout factors measured from field tests ((Nqf)M) with those estimated from empirical equations ((Nqf)E).
Diameter, Depth,
Authors D (m) H (m) H/D φ (°) (Nqf)M (Nqf)E (Nqf)M/(Nqf)E
Brown-Boweri (reported by Balla 1961) 1.900 1.50 0.79 36 3.20 2.62 1.22
1.900 1.45 0.76 36 3.30 2.53 1.30
Fieltz (reported by Balla 1961) 1.300 2.50 1.92 30 3.80 5.92 0.64
1.100 2.70 2.45 30 6.00 6.72 0.89
1.400 2.50 1.78 30 3.90 5.52 0.71
Sutherland 1965 2.390 2.44 1.02 45 3.52 3.71 0.95
2.390 4.57 1.91 45 7.69 7.84 0.98
2.390 4.57 1.91 45 7.37 7.84 0.94
2.390 5.18 2.17 45 9.44 9.16 1.03
2.390 5.18 2.17 45 9.22 9.16 1.00
2.390 7.00 2.93 45 12.28 13.75 0.89
Baker and Kondner 1966 0.305 1.63 5.33 37 33.40 28.20 1.18
Kananyan 1966 0.406 3.48 8.56 37 48.00 56.40 0.85
0.600 1.00 1.67 32 5.40 5.38 1.00
0.800 1.00 1.25 32 4.18 4.07 1.02
1.000 1.00 1.00 32 3.23 3.25 0.99
1.200 1.00 0.83 32 2.73 2.67 1.02
Martin and Negre 1967 (reported by Vesic 1971) 0.406 — 8.20 37 40.00 53.60 0.75
Kwasniewski et al. 1975 0.900 2.00 2.22 30 6.16 6.78 0.91
0.700 1.90 2.71 28 6.93 7.45 0.93
0.700 1.30 1.85 32 5.74 5.94 0.97
0.700 1.50 2.14 32 7.02 6.84 1.03

Empirical relationships between breakout Fig. 14. Comparison of measured breakout factor, (Nqf)M, and
factor and embedment ratio empirically estimated breakout factor, (Nqf)E, in medium-dense sand.

A series of empirical equations has been formulated from

the similar relationships between Nqf and H/D obtained in
this research. Hence, one set of equations was formulated
(Ilamparuthi 1991) for anchors in loose sand and, by use of
a further equation, predictions can be made for any other
density. The empirical eqs. [2]–[7] predict the breakout fac-
tor for any embedment ratio in loose sand in terms of the
value of Nqf for a circular plate anchor with H/D = 1:
[2] Nqf = e(33.5/28)(H/D) for 0 ≤ (H/D) ≤ 1.0

[3] Nqf = (H/D)Nqf1 for 1.0 < (H/D) ≤ 2.4

[4] Nqf = (H/2D)(etan φ ln(H/D) )N

qf1
for 2.4 < (H/D) ≤ 4.2

[5] Nqf = [(H/D) + (H/D)(etan φ ln(D/H))]Nqf1

for 4.2 < (H/D) < 6.0

[6] Nqf = [(H/D) + (etan φ ln(H/D))]Nqf1

for 6.0 ≤ (H/D) ≤ 10.0 predict the breakout factor for any embedment ratio and an-
gle of shearing resistance for anchors in denser sands:
[7] Nqf = [Nqf10 + etan φ ln(H/D – 10) ]
φ
for 10.0 < (H/D) ≤ 12.0 [8] N qf = N 33.5
qf (e
(H/3D)(φ – 33.5)/33.5 )

where Nqf is the breakout factor for any desired H/D ratio in
loose sand, Nqf1 is the breakout factor for H/D = 1.0 (which
is equal to 3.3) for φ = 33.5°, and Nqf10 is the breakout factor
for H/D = 10.0. Breakout factors for anchors with H/D <
(H/D)CR are obtained from eqs. [2]–[4], and eqs. [5]–[7] re-
late to deep anchors. The following equation can be used to
φ
where N qf is the breakout factor for any φ value and H/D
qf is the breakout factor for φ = 33.5° at the
value, and N 33.5
same embedment ratio, obtained from eqs. [2]–[7]. Breakout
factors determined from the empirical equations [2]–[8] compare
very well with the experimental values in this research, aver-
age differences being –1.0, –2.4. and +5.2% for loose,

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:24 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

658 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002

Table 4. Comparison of breakout factors from empirical equations with field test results on belled piles.
Diameter of Depth of
Authors pile, D (m) embedment, H (m) H/D φ (°) (Nqf)M (Nqf)E (Nqf)M/(Nqf)E
Downs and Chieurzzi 1966 0.61 3.08 5.05 24.7 11.86 14.37 0.83
0.75 2.77 3.71 24.7 9.13 10.54 0.87
1.02 2.83 2.79 24.7 6.86 7.10 0.97
Tucker 1987 1.22 1.68 1.38 38.0 4.73 4.83 0.98
1.30 2.00 1.59 42.0 7.95 5.83 1.36
1.30 2.03 1.57 40.0 6.29 5.72 1.09
1.22 1.73 1.42 40.0 6.69 5.12 1.30
1.27 2.18 1.76 40.0 4.67 6.33 0.74
1.32 2.11 1.60 42.0 7.09 6.03 1.17
1.37 2.53 1.84 40.0 7.27 6.86 1.06
1.52 2.44 1.60 42.0 4.55 6.04 0.75
1.52 2.29 1.50 42.0 6.47 5.62 1.15
0.91 3.20 3.50 36.0 13.10 14.43 0.91
1.13 2.35 2.08 36.0 6.51 6.79 0.96
Konstantinidis et al. 1987 0.91 3.20 3.52 48.0 19.71 21.90 0.90
0.91 2.50 2.08 48.0 17.51 13.18 1.33

medium-dense, and dense sands, respectively. The compari- Fig. 15. Comparison of breakout factors from empirical equa-
son for anchors in medium-dense sand is shown in Fig. 14. tions and previous experimental research for circular plate an-
chors in loose to medium-dense sand. N.A., not available.

Comparison between breakout factors from

published field and model studies and
proposed empirical equations
Large-scale test results on plate anchors ranging in size
from 0.3 to 2.4 m and embedment ratios between 0.75 and
8.50, reported by various researchers (Brown-Boweri and
Fieltz as reported by Balla 1961; Sutherland 1965;
Kananyan 1966; Baker and Kondner 1966; Martin and
Negre 1967 as reported by Vesic 1971; Kwasniewski et al.
1975), are used in this study to examine the applicability of
the proposed empirical equations. These field tests were
conducted at different locations and in different sand condi-
tions. Table 3 shows the comparison between the breakout
factors from the empirical equations and those obtained in
the field. The empirical breakout factors are in excellent
agreement with values computed from Sutherland (1965),
Kananyan (1966), and Kwasniewski et al. (1975). The agree-
ment with Brown-Boweri (reported by Balla 1961) is good,
with an underestimation of 25%, whereas the results of Fieltz
(also reported by Balla 1961) are overestimated by 10–35%.
Comparisons with the deep anchor data of Baker and
Kondner (1966) and Martin and Negre (1967, as reported by
Vesic 1971) are good, overestimations being 15 and 25%, re-
spectively. The maximum deviation with the field tests on
large anchors is around 30%. This may be as a result of the
wide range of particle sizes, non-homogeneity, initial stress
conditions of natural deposits, disturbance due to installa-
tion, etc. Bearing in mind the diversity of conditions, how-
ever, this order of deviation is within acceptable limits.
Theoretical uplift capacities for belled piles are mostly de- Table 4. The agreement between the field test results and
termined from plate anchor theories by taking the diameter empirical equations is again good, with a maximum devia-
of the bell equal to the diameter of the rigid plate. Therefore, tion of around 30%. Tucker reported that his tests were con-
the field tests on belled piles reported by Downs and ducted in silty sand with gravel. Hence the reported φ values
Chieurzzi (1966), Tucker (1987), and Konstantinidis et al. are either from direct shear tests or interpolated values from
(1987) are compared with the predicted breakout factors in cone penetration tests. Despite this limitation, the comparison

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:25 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Ilamparuthi et al.
Fig. 16. Comparison of breakout factors from empirical equations and previous experimental research for circular plate anchors in me-
dium-dense to dense sand.
Fig. 17. Displacement at peak pullout load for circular plate an-
chors at various embedment ratios in dense sand.
with the 11 tests is excellent, only two results deviating by
more than 25%.
Breakout factors from eqs. [2]–[8] are also compared
graphically with 60 laboratory model tests (Kwasniewski et
al. 1975; Sutherland et al. 1982; Andreadis and Harvey
1981; Balla 1961; Baker and Kondner 1966; Clemence and
I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:25 AM
659
Veesaert 1977; Murray and Geddes 1987; Bemben and
Kupferman 1975) involving various anchor diameters,
embedment depths, and sand conditions. The results are
shown in Fig. 15 for sand with φ values between 28 and 36°
(deemed to be loose to medium-dense sand) and in Fig. 16
for φ values between 38 and 46° (deemed to be medium-
dense to dense sand). Good agreement between the experi-
mental breakout factors and empirical equations is again ob-
tained, only five results deviating by 25%. Twenty percent
of the test results compare fairly well and are within a range
of variation of 10–20%. The remaining 70% of the test re-
sults compare well, with the deviation being less than 10%.
Experimental results from both field and model tests for a
wide range of diameters, embedment depths, and φ values
between 28 and 46°, including some results in submerged
conditions, compare reasonably well with the breakout fac-
tors from the empirical equations. It is therefore suggested
that they could be applied with some confidence to predict
breakout factors of circular plate anchors in sand. Results by
Mitsch and Clemence (1985) from tests on helical anchors,
however, are considerably lower than those predicted by the
empirical equations [2]–[8]. This is attributed to sand distur-
bance during installation for this type of anchor.
Anchor displacement at peak pullout load
The variation of displacement at peak pullout load, δ, with
H/D is presented in Fig. 17 for dense sand. Initially the rela-
© 2002 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
660
Fig. 18. Determination of critical embedment ratio for circular
plate anchors in dense sand.
tionship curves upwards, followed by a reduction in slope,
becoming almost asymptotic at higher embedment ratios.
The change in slope occurs at H/D ≅ 6.8 for both 100 and
125 mm diameter anchors. Similar trends were observed for
anchors in loose and medium-dense sand. Alternatively, this
variation may be plotted logarithmically as shown for dense
sand in Fig. 18. The relationship is bilinear, and the change
in slope may be assumed to occur at (H/D)CR, giving values
of 5.0, 5.8, and 6.8 for loose, medium-dense, and dense sand
Fig. 19. Variation of normalized failure displacement δ /D with embedment ratio H/D for circular plate anchors in medium-dense sand.
I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:26 AM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002
beds, respectively, which are very close to those obtained by
other methods discussed earlier. Hence the relation between
δ and H/D could also be used to distinguish shallow from
deep anchor behaviour. A typical dimensionless relationship
between δ /D and H/D for medium-dense sand is presented
in Fig. 19. The value of δ/D increases with an increase in
H/D for all diameters studied, the rate decreasing with an in-
crease in embedment ratio for H/D > 5.5. This embedment
ratio (H/D = 5.5) is close to the critical value obtained by
other methods in the present study for medium-dense sand.
Similar conclusions are also drawn for the other densities.
The results can also be interpreted in another form from the
relationship between δ/H and H/D as shown, for example, in
Fig. 20 for medium-dense sand. The δ/H ratio increases with
an increase in H/D for shallow anchors and then decreases,
clearly identifying the critical embedment ratio, irrespective
of the anchor diameter and density of the sand bed. Values
obtained by this method are 5.1, 5.9, and 6.9 for loose, me-
dium-dense, and dense sand beds, respectively. The larger
the anchor, the higher the δ/H ratio for any given H/D. The
critical embedment ratio is approximately the same for all
the diameters studied for a given sand packing. The critical
embedment ratios obtained from displacements at peak pull-
out resistance and the δ/H ratio compare well with those ob-
tained from the shape of the load–displacement curve and
also from the logarithmic plot of breakout factor against
embedment ratio.
Surface particle displacements (heave)
The extent of heave at the sand surface was noted in full-
shape model tests. The surface heave consisted of a series of
concentric circles, the outermost exhibiting the least amount
of heave and corresponding to the peak pullout load. Further
anchor displacement generated a series of failure surfaces
corresponding to post-peak and residual behaviour in broad
agreement with observations made in the half-cut model
tests. The observed surface heaves and those deduced from
© 2002 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Ilamparuthi et al. 661

Table 5. Typical results of surface particle displacements for circular plate anchor in dry sand.

Diameter of anchor, Depth of embedment, Surface heave Lateral extent of heave (mm)
D (mm) H (mm) H/D (observed or not) Observed Calculated
φ = 33.5°
100 297.2 2.97 Yes 311 279
100 600.4 6.00 No — —
150 297.5 1.99 Yes 367 329
150 601.7 4.01 Yes —a —
150 897.9 5.98 No — —
φ = 38.5°
100 102.9 1.03 Yes 185 172
100 189.1 1.89 Yes 242 232
100 257.0 2.57 Yes 339 279
100 378.7 3.79 Yes 405 365
100 475.0 4.75 Yes 430 432
100 592.4 5.92 Yes —a —
100 699.0 6.99 No — —
150 286.4 1.91 Yes 374 350
150 437.9 2.92 Yes 421 456
150 582.0 3.88 Yes 607 557
150 680.5 4.54 Yes 678 625
150 884.7 5.90 Yes —a —
150 1210.3 8.07 No — —
φ = 43°
100 190.4 1.90 Yes 251 250
100 287.0 2.87 Yes 355 326
100 390.8 3.91 Yes 509 458
100 474.8 4.75 Yes 492 474
100 597.4 5.97 Yes
100 690.8 6.91 No — —
150 301.6 2.01 Yes 408 388
150 438.6 2.92 Yes 485 496
150 590.8 3.94 Yes 614 623
150 693.1 4.62 Yes 722 696
150 898.6 5.99 Yes 884 858
150 1184.4 7.89 No — —
a
Heave surface could not be distinguished clearly.

Fig. 20. Variation of normalized failure displacement δ /H with
embedment ratio H/D for circular plate anchors in medium-dense sand.
the rupture surface in half-cut model tests for 100 and
150 mm diameter anchors are compared in Table 5. The
presence or absence of surface heave also helps in distin-
guishing shallow and deep anchor behaviour. The lateral
extent of heave increases with an increase in H and sand
density. Surface heave was insignificant for H/D of about
4.0, 5.9, and 6.0 for loose, medium-dense, and dense sands,
respectively.

Critical embedment ratio

Knowledge of the critical embedment ratio enables anchor
behaviour to be estimated by the appropriate design method.
The critical embedment ratios obtained for loose, medium-
dense, and dense sand beds from the alternative methods
adopted in this research are given in Table 6. The methods
that give the more reliable values are plotted in Fig. 21 as a
function of φ to facilitate interpolation for other friction an-
gles. The suggested values are 4.8, 5.9, and 6.8, respectively,
for the loose, medium-dense, and dense sands studied.
(H/D)CR values reported by other investigators are presented

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:26 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

662 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002

Table 6. Critical embedment ratios for circular plate anchors determined by various methods.
Critical embedment ratio
Means of determination φ = 33.5° φ = 38.5° φ = 43.0°
Load vs. displacement 4.0 5.9 6.3
Nqf vs. H/D 4.5 5.5 6.6
δ vs. H/D 5.0 5.8 6.8
δ/H vs. H/D 5.1 5.9 6.9
Surface heave 4.0 5.9 >6.0
Rupture surface in half-cut model test 4.9 5.8 6.9

Table 7. Comparison of critical embedment ratios obtained from the present investigation with those
from published results.
Critical embedment ratio
Angle of shearing Published Present
Authors resistance, φ (°) results investigation
Baker and Kondner 1966 42 6 6.6
Vesic 1971 Loose 3 4.8
Dense 10 6.8
Meyerhof and Adams 1968 30 4 4.0
35 5 5.1
40 7 6.2
45 9 7.5
Clemence and Veesaert 1977 41 5 6.4
Sutherland et al. 1982 33.6 4.3 4.8
36.5 7.8 5.4
41.5 10.5 6.5
Tagaya et al. 1988 32 6 4.4
42 8 6.6

Fig. 21. Comparison of alternative estimations of critical
embedment ratio for circular plate anchors in sand.
higher. The values of Meyerhof and Adams (1968) are in
good agreement for loose and medium-dense sands but are
about 10–20% higher for dense sand. The values of
Clemence and Veesaert (1977) are about 21% lower than
those found here, and Sutherland et al. (1982) propose com-
parable values for loose sand but relatively higher values for
medium-dense and dense sands by about 44 and 62%, re-
spectively. Tagaya et al. (1988) suggest values 36 and 21%
higher than those of the authors for loose and dense sands,
respectively. Clearly there is considerable disparity which
may be attributed to the size of models tested, the stress lev-
els, and the methods adopted for determining the critical
depth. The sizes of models tested by most investigators were
rather small, and this would certainly influence the behav-
iour considerably.

in Table 7. That obtained by Baker and Kondner (1966) for
φ = 42° is in good agreement with the present study, whereas
the value of Vesic (1971) for dense sand is about 50%
Conclusions
The uplift capacity of circular anchors is strongly depend-
ent on their diameter, embedment ratio, and sand density.
Two modes of failure develop within the soil mass de-
pending on the anchor embedment ratio. Shallow anchor be-
haviour is characterized by an uplifted frustum of a cone of
soil extending from the anchor to the sand surface, with
sides inclined at approximately φ/2 to the vertical, irrespec-
tive of sand density. Deep anchor behaviour is characterized
by a balloon-shaped rupture zone in the soil mass above the
anchor. The plane portion of this rupture surface emerges

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:27 AM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Ilamparuthi et al.
from the top edge of anchor and is inclined at 0.8 φ to the
vertical, also independent of density of sand.
The load–displacement response is different for shallow
and deep anchor conditions, a three-phase behaviour
characterizing the shallow case and a two-phase behaviour
the deep case.
The critical embedment ratio can be identified in a num-
ber of ways. Six alternative methods were compared and
were mostly in broad agreement. A method based on the
normalized failure displacement δ/H provided the clearest in-
dication of critical depth in this study.
The critical embedment ratio increases with an increase in
sand density; the recommended values are 4.8, 5.9, and 6.8
for loose, medium-dense, and dense sand, respectively, for
anchors in the 100–150 mm diameter range considered.
These values are in good agreement with those suggested by
Meyerhof and Adams (1968) but differ significantly from
some other reported values.
A set of empirical equations has been formulated from
which the breakout factors of circular anchors with H/D <
12 embedded in sand can be predicted. Good agreement ex-
ists between values from the proposed empirical equations
and those from many laboratory and field-based studies re-
ported in the literature.
References
Adams, J.I., and Hayes, D.C. 1967. The uplift capacity of shallow
foundations. Ontario Hydro Research Quarterly, 19(1): 1–15.
Andreadis, A., and Harvey, R.C. 1981. A design procedure for em-
bedded anchors. Applied Ocean Research, 3(4): 171–182.
Baker, W.H., and Kondner, R.L. 1966. Pullout load capacity of cir-
cular earth anchor buried in sand. National Academy of Sci-
ences, Highway Research Board, Report 108, pp. 1–10.
Balla, A. 1961. The resistance to breaking out of mushroom foun-
dations for pylons. In Proceedings of the 5th International Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris,
France, Vol. 1, pp. 569–576.
Bemben, S.M., and Kupferman, M. 1975. The vertical holding
capacity of marine anchor flukes subjected to static and cyclic
loading. In Proceedings of the 7th Offshore Technology Confer-
ence, Houston, Tex., OTC2185, pp. 363–374.
Bobbitt, D.E., and Clemence, S.P. 1987. Helical anchors: applica-
tion and design criteria. In Proceedings of the 9th Southeast
Asian Geotechechnical Conference, Bangkok, Thailand,
pp. 105–120.
Chattopadhyay, B.C., and Pise, P.J. 1986. Breakout resistance of
horizontal anchors in sand. Soils and Foundations, 26(4): 16–22.
Clemence, S.P., and Veesaert, C.J. 1977. Dynamic pullout resis-
tance of anchors in sand. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Soil–Structure Interaction, Roorkee, India,
pp. 389–397.
Dickin, E.A. 1988. Uplift behaviour of horizontal anchor plates in
sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 114(11):
1300–1317.
Dickin, E.A., and Leung, C.F. 1990. Performance of piles with en-
larged bases subject to uplift forces. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 27: 546–556.
Dickin, E.A., and Leung, C.F. 1992. The influence of foundation
geometry on the uplift behaviour of piles with enlarged bases.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29: 498–505.
Downs, D.I., and Chieurzzi, R. 1966. Transmission tower founda-
tions. Journal of the Power Division, ASCE, 92(2): 91–114.
I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:27 AM
663
Ghaly, A., and Hanna, A. 1994a. Model investigation of the perfor-
mance of single anchors and groups of anchors. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 31: 273–284.
Ghaly, A., and Hanna, A. 1994b. Ultimate pullout resistance of single
vertical anchors. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31: 661–672.
Ghaly, A.M., Hanna, A.M., and Hanna, M.S. 1991. Uplift behav-
iour of screw anchors in sand. I: Dry sand. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117(5): 773–793.
Giffels, W.C., Graham, R.E., and Mook, J.F. 1960. Concrete cylin-
der anchors proved for 345-KV tower line. Electrical World,
154: 46–49.
Ilamparuthi, K. 1991. Experimental investigation on pullout capac-
ity of plate anchors in sand. Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of
Technology, Madras, Chennai, India.
Ilamparuthi, K., and Muthukrishnaiah, K. 1999. Anchors in sand
bed: delineation of rupture surface. Ocean Engineering, 26:
1249–1273.
Ireland, H.O. 1963. Discussion on uplift resistance of transmission
tower footings by E.A. Turner. Journal of the Power Division,
ASCE, 89(1): 115–118.
Kananyan, A.S. 1966. Experimental investigation of the stability of
base of anchor foundations. Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering (Moscow), 3(6): 387–392.
Khadilkar, B.S., Paradkar, A.K., and Golait, Y.S. 1971. Study of
rupture surface and ultimate resistance of anchor foundations. In
Proceedings of 4th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand, Vol. 1,
pp. 121–127.
Konstantinidis, B., Pacel, A.J., and Shively, A.W. 1987. Uplift ca-
pacity of drilled piers in desert soils: a case history. In Founda-
tions for transmission line towers. Geotechnical Special
Publication 8, Edited by J.-L. Briaud. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, pp. 128–141.
Kwasniewski, J., Sulikowska, I., and Walter, A. 1975. Anchors
with vertical tie rods. In Proceedings of the 1st Baltic Confer-
ence, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Gdansk, Po-
land, pp. 122–133.
LeTirant, P. 1979. Seabed reconnaissance and offshore soil me-
chanics for installation of petroleum structures. Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston, Tex.
Macdonald, H.F. 1963. Uplift resistance of caisson piles in sand.
M.Sc. thesis, Nova Scotia Technical College, Halifax, N.S.
Majer, J. 1955. Zur Berechnung von Zugfundamenten.
Osterreichische Bauzeitgschrift, 10(5): 85–90. (In German.)
Mariupol’skii, L.G. 1965. The bearing capacity of anchor founda-
tions. Osnovaniya Fundamenty i Mekhanika Gruntov, 3(1):14–18.
Matsuo, M. 1967. Study of uplift resistance of footings: I. Soils
and Foundations, 7(4): 1–37.
Matsuo, M. 1968. Study of uplift resistance of footings: II. Soils
and Foundations, 8(1): 18–48.
Meyerhof, G.G., and Adams, J.I. 1968. The ultimate uplift capacity
of foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 5: 225–244.
Mitsch, M.P., and Clemence, S.P. 1985. The uplift capacity of helix
anchors in sand. In Uplift Behaviour of Anchor Foundations in
Soil, Proceedings of a Session Sponsored by the Geotechnical
Engineering Division of the American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, Michigan. Edited by S.P. Clemence. American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 26–47.
Mors, H. 1959. The behaviour of mast foundations subject to ten-
sile forces. Bautechnik, 10: 367–378.
Murray, E.J., and Geddes, J.D. 1987. Uplift behaviour of plates in sand.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 113(3): 202–215.
Narasimha Rao, S., Ravi, R., and Siva Prasad, B. 1996. Suction an-
chor — a feasible foundation for TLP. In COE ‘96, Proceedings
© 2002 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

664 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 39, 2002

of the International Conference in Ocean Engineering, Madras, List of symbols

India, pp. 321–326.
Ovesen, N.K. 1981. Centrifuge tests of the uplift capacity of an-
A anchor (mm2)
chors. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on
Cc coefficient of curvature
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol. 1,
Cu uniformity coefficient
pp. 717–722.
Rowe, R.K., and Davis, E.H. 1982. The behaviour of anchor plates d10 effective grain size (mm)
in sand. Géotechnique, 32(1): 25–41. D anchor plate (or pile bell) diameter (mm)
Saran, S., Ranjan, G., and Nene, A.S. 1986. Soil anchors and con- emax maximum void ratio
stitutive laws. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, emin minimum void ratio
112(12): 1084–1100. Gs specific gravity of sand grains
Sutherland, H.B. 1965. Model studies of shaft raising through h thickness of anchor plate (or pile bell) (mm)
cohesionless soils. In Proceedings of the 6th International Con- H depth of embedment (mm)
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, H/D embedment ratio
Montréal, Vol. 2, pp. 410–413. (H/D)CR critical embedment ratio
Sutherland, H.B. 1988. Uplift resistance of soils. Géotechnique, Nqf breakout factor
38(4): 493–516. Nqf1 breakout factor for H/D = 1
Sutherland, H.B., Finlay, T.W., and Fadl, M.O. 1982. Uplift capac- Nqf10 breakout factor for H/D = 10
ity of embedded anchors in sand. In Proceedings of the 3rd In- N φqf breakout factor for any φ value and H/D value
ternational Conference on the Behaviour of Offshore Structures, N 33.5
qf
breakout factor for φ = 33.5° at the same embedment ratio
Cambridge, Mass., Vol. 2, pp. 451–463. (Nqf)E breakout factor estimated from empirical equations
Tagaya, K., Scott, R.F., and Aboshi, H. 1988. Pullout resistance of (Nqf)M breakout factor measured from field tests
buried anchor in sand. Soils and Foundations, 28(3): 114–130. Q mobilized pullout load (N)
Tucker, K.D. 1987. Uplift capacity of drilled shafts and driven piles Qf peak pullout load (N)
in granular materials. In Foundations for transmission line towers. δ vertical displacement at peak pullout load (mm)
Geotechnical Special Publication 8, Edited by J.-L. Briaud. γdmax maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3)
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 142–159. γdmin minimum dry unit weight (kN/m3)
Tudor, W.J. 1967. Mooring and anchoring of deep ocean platforms.
γ′ effective unit weight (kN/m3)
In Proceedings of the Conference on Civil Engineering in the
φ angle of shearing resistance (°)
Oceans, ASCE, San Francisco, Calif., pp. 351–390.
θ angle of inclination of slip surface to vertical (°)
Vesic, A.S. 1971. Breakout resistance of objects embedded in
ψ angle of dilatancy
ocean bottom. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering Division, ASCE, 97(9): 1183–1205.

© 2002 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj39\Cgj-03\T02-005.vp
Monday, May 13, 2002 11:43:28 AM