 Introduction

 Overview of Literature
 Critical Appraisal
 Gaps in the Literature
 Proposed Research Plan
1. Methods adopted
2. Problems Identified for research

1
• Anchors are tension members.

• Its capacity is obtained either by using

theoretical or numerical methods.

• Complex problems are difficult to be solved

using theoretical approaches.

2
 Dry dock Bottom supported and vertically
Tower legs
moored structures

Floating production and subsea

systems Sheet pile wall Sheet pile wall
(section) (plan)
3
Field tests: Kananyan, 1966;
Trautmann and Kulhawy, 1988

Laboratory tests: Meyerhof and Adams, 1963;

Das and Seeley, 1975, 1977;
Hoshiya and Mandal, 1984;
Murray and Geddes, 1987, 1989;
Bouazza and Finlay,1990;
Hanna et al., 1972;
Dickin and Leung, 1983;
Ilamparuthi and Muthukrishnaiah ,1999;
Ilamparuthi et al., 2002;
Niroumand and Kassim, 2014.

4
Theoretical Studies : - Majer, 1955;
Mors, 1959;
Balla, 1961;
Meyerhof and Adams, 1968;
Vesic, 1971;
Subbarao and Kumar,1994;
Choudhury and Subbarao, 2004 & 2005;
Deshmukh et al., 2010 & 2011;
Rangari et al., 2012;
Hanna et al., 2014;
Ghosh and Santhoshkumar, 2015.

Murray and Geddes, 1987;

Kumar, 2002, 2003;
Kumar and kouzer, 2008;
Ghosh, 2009;
Ghosh, 2010;

5
Numerical Studies : - Rowe and Davis, 1982;
Merifield et al., 2005;
Dickin and Laman, 2007;
Sakai and Tanaka, 2007;

Merifield and Sloan, 2006;

Kumar and kouzer, 2008;
Khatri and Kumar, 2011;
Sahoo and Kumar, 2014a & 2014b;
Bhattacharya and Kumar, 2014;

6
Investigator(s) Method of Type of Formulation
analysis anchor
Majer (1955) Vertical slip Circular H
F  1  2 K   tan 
surface B
where K is the coefficient of lateral stress in
soil
Mors (1959) Soil cone Circular H     2  H  2  
F  1  2   cot  45      cot  45  
method B   4  3  
B  4 
(Truncated cone
slip surface)
Balla (1961) Tangential curve Circular  4  H 
2

slip surface F  F1  F3    

  B 
where F1 and F3 are dependent on ϕ and H/B
and can be obtained from the graph provided
by author
Ireland (1963) Cylindrical Circular H
F  1  2 K 0   tan 
friction surface B
where K0 is the coefficient of lateral pressure
in soil ( K0 = 0.5 and ϕ =300for granular soils
and K0 = 0.4 and ϕ =200for silts)
Mariupol’skii Mathematical Circular   d 2 H 
(1965) formulation by  1     2 K   tan  
  d 2 
0
    B  B 
assuming slip F   1    ,   ,
 B  H
2
H
surface as a cone   1     2n 
with curvilinear B B
geneatrix where n and d are an empirical coefficient and
the diameter of the shaft respectively
Downs and Soil cone Circular H  2 H
2
 d
2

Chieurzzi method (cone F 1  2   tan     tan    

B  3 B   B
(1966) angle with
vertical = ϕ)
7
Meyerhof and Pyramidal Strip H  H 
F 1  2   Ku tan   m    1 
Adams (1968) shaped slip B  B 
surface H
F  1  0.95 tan  (approximate)
B
Where Ku = 0.9 for ϕ ranges from 300 to 450
and m is the shape factor, dependent on ϕ (This
equation was derived by Das and Yang 1987)
Vesic (1971) Cavity Strip, F values are provided in the form of chart in
expansion model Circular terms of ϕ and H/B (see Das and Yang 1987)
and
Rectangul
-ar
Clemence and Inverted cone Circular   H    
2
 
Veesaert slip surface F  1    tan   4 K 0 tan  cos2  
  B   2  2
(1977) (cone angle with
  H  1  H  2   
vertical = ϕ/2)  0.5     tan 
  B  3  B   2 
Andreadis and Derived from Circular F values are provided by the author in the
Harvy (1981) model and field form of chart in terms of ϕ and H/B
test on anchors
Ovesen (1981) Formulation Circular H
1.5

derived from F 1  4.32 tan   1.58  

 Be 
centrifugal
Where Be  B 4
2
model tests on
horizontal
anchors
Rowe and Finite element Strip F  R R RK RR
Davis (1982) analysis Where Rγ is a function of ϕ and H/B, Rψ is a
function of ψ and H/B, and the values of Rk
and RR may be taken as unity; Charts are
provided by the author; Shape factor Sf (Dickin
1988) can be used to obtain Fγ corresponding
to circular anchors

8
Sutherland et Inverted cone Circular  2 H  
2
H
al. (1982) slip surface F 1  4  tan   4   tan  
B  3  B  
(cone angle is a
function of ϕ) Where   0.25I D 1  cos2    1  sin2  

Vermeer and Inverted cone Circular H

F 1  2  tan  cosCV
sutjiadi (1985) slip surface B
(cone angle =ψ) Where ϕCV is the critical state friction angle
Murry and Inverted cone Rectangul H  H 
Geddes (1987) slip surface -ar F 1    tan 2    tan   limit analysis
 Be   3  Be  
(cone angle = ϕ)
Planar surface Strip H
F  1  tan  limit analysis
B
H  
F  1  sin   sin 2  limit equilibrium
B  
approach
Straight line Circular H  2H 
F  1  2 tan  1  tan   limit analysis
plane with B  3 B 
circular arc H   2 H  
F  1  2  sin   sin  1  tan 2  sin  
B 2  3 B 2 
limit equilibrium approach
Deshmukh et Planar failure Strip H 
F  1  2 tan
al. (2011) surface B 2

9
Investigator(s) Type of Anchor Anchor Friction Roughness Depth
testing shape dimension angles of anchor ratio
in mm (Degrees) (Degrees) H/B or
H/D
Kananyan
Field Circular 400-1200 32 - 0.83-2.5
(1966)
Hanna and
Chamber Circular 38 37 - 4-11.2
Carr (1971)
Hanna et al. Chamber 38 and
Circular 37 - 4-11.2
(1971) and field 150
Square
Das and Seeley
Chamber Rectangular 51 32 - 1-5
(1975)
(L/B=1-5)
Rowe and Square
Chamber 51 32 16.7 1-8.75
Davis (1982) Rectangular
Andreadis et
Chamber Circular 50-150 37,42.5 - 1-14
al.(1981)
Centrifuge Circular
Ovesen (1981) 20 29.5-37.7 - 1-3.39
and field Square

10
 Murry and Circular
Geddes Chamber Rectangular 50.8 44,36 11,42 1-10
(1987) (L/B=1-10)
Saeedy
Chamber Circular 37.8-75.6 42 - 5-10
(1987)
Frydman and
Field Strip 19
Shamam 30, 45 - 2.5-9.35
Chamber Rectangular 200
(1989)
Centrifuge Square 25 38-41
Dickin (1988) - 1-8
Chamber Rectangular 50 48-51
Tagaya et al. Circular
Centrifuge 15 42 - 3-7.02
(1988) Rectangular
Murry and Square
43.6
Geddes Chamber Rectangular 50.8 10.6 1-8
36
(1989) (L/B = 1-8)

11
 Depth
Anchor Friction Roughness
Type of Anchor ratio
Investigator(s) dimension angles of anchor
testing shape H/B or
in mm (Degrees) (Degrees)
H/D
Das et al.
Chamber Square 38.1 31,34,40.5 - 2-10
(1977)
Dickin and Centrifuge 38 and
Circular 37 - 4-11.2
Lueng (1983) and field 150
Square 25.4
Hoshiya and
Chamber Rectangular 50.8 29.5 - 1-6
Mandal (1984)
(L/B=1-6) 76.2

12
Most of the laboratory tests were performed only on single isolated
anchors of different geometry. All the earlier studies considered the
direction of load is perpendicular to the base of the anchor plate.

Number of theories was developed, mostly based on limit

equilibrium method by assuming failure surfaces in advance.

Based on this approach, the effects of earthquakes on the pullout

capacity of anchors were studied with the inclusion of pseudo static
earthquake body forces. Later, the same approach is extended to
pseudo-dynamic case which in turn considers the effect of the
amplification of vibrations.
Recent advances in stability analysis enable us to compute the
rigorous upper and lower bounds on the failure load based on limit
theorems of classical plasticity in conjunction with finite elements.

13
The solutions for the determination of pullout capacity of a group of
circular and rectangular plate anchors are not available.

It seems that hardly any investigation is available in literature on

pullout resistance of plate anchor embedded in sloping grounds.

No work is reported to obtain the ultimate capacity of vertical

anchors under seismic condition in general c- soil. Moreover, the
effect of surcharge load on ultimate capacity of vertical anchors is
not studied.

Hardly any work is reported for determining the seismic stability of

plate anchors under pseudo dynamic body forces by using numerical
limit analysis, in which the shape of failure surface is not required to
be assumed in advance.

14
Methods adopted
1. Theoretical analysis based on upper bound
theorem of limit analysis.
2. Lower bound numerical analysis
3. Upper bound numerical analysis

Assumptions
The soil mass is assumed to obey Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion and an associated flow rule.
However, for a non-associated flow rule material, the present
solution can be applied by replacing the value of  with * for a
known value of dilatancy angle ().

*  tan 1  Drescher and Detournay, 1993

cos sin 
 
1  sin sin 
15
Concept of bound theorems in Numerical
limit analysis
1) The compatibility conditions,
2) The kinematically admissible velocity discontinuities, and
3) The velocity boundary conditions.

Optimization:- Minimization

Upper Bound
Exact Solution
Lower Bound

1) The equilibrium of the elements,

2) The discontinuities are statically admissible, and
3) The satisfaction of the associated boundary stresses.

Optimization:- Maximization

16
Numerical lower bound
analysis (Sloan, 1988)

(1) Equilibrium of the elements

17
(2) Statically admissible stress
discontinuities

18
(3) Stress boundary conditions

(4) Yield condition

Objective Function

This function is to be maximized with constraints (1)-(4)

19
Upper bound analysis
(Sloan and Kleeman, 1995)

Constraints
(1) Compatibility conditions

(2) Kinematically admissible

Velocity discontinuities

20
(3) Velocity boundary conditions

Power dissipation (C)

1. Due to body forces

2. continuum due to plastic deformation
3. Along the velocity discontinuities

Objective Function

This function is to be minimized with constraints (1)-(3)

21
 Interference effect of
q

Pu
d
Pu circular anchors

q
b S b
(a)

Pu Pu Pu
d d

b S b S b

(b)

22
Anchors in Sloping
ground

23
 Balla, A. (1961). The resistance to breaking out of
mushroom foundations for pylons. Proc. 5th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 569-
576.
Bouazza, A., and Finlay, T. W. (1990). Uplift capacity of
plate anchors buried in a two-layered sand. Geotechnique, 40(2),
293-297.
Choudhury, D., and Subba Rao, K. S. (2005). Seismic
uplift capacity of inclined strip anchors. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 42(1), 263-271.
Das, B. M., and Seeley, G.R. (1975). Breakout resistance
of shallow horizontal anchors. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 101(9), 999-1003.
Deshmukh, V. B., Dewaikar, D. M., and Choudhary, D.
(2011). Uplift capacity of horizontal strip anchors in cohesionless
soil. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 29(6), 977-988.
24
 Dickin, E. A., and Laman, M. (2007). Uplift response of
strip anchors in cohesionless soil. Advances in Engineering
Software, 38(8), 618-625.
Drescher, A., and Detournay, E. (1993). Limit load in
translational failure mechanisms for associative and non-
associative materials. Geotechnique, 43(3), 443-456.
Ghosh, P. (2009). Seismic vertical uplift capacity of
horizontal strip anchors using pseudo-dynamic approach.
Computers and Geotechnics, 36(1), 342-351.
Ilamparuthi, K., and Muthukrishnaiah, K. (1999). Anchors
in sand bed: delineation of rupture surface. Ocean Engineering,
26(12), 1249-1273.
Kananyan, A. S. (1966). Experimental investigation of the
stability of bases of anchor foundations. Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 3(6), 387-392.
Kouzer, K. M., and Kumar, J. (2009). Vertical uplift
capacity of equally spaced horizontal strip anchors in sand.
International Journal of Geomechanics, 9(5), 230-236.
25
 Kumar, J., and Sahoo, J. P. (2012). Vertical uplift
resistance of a group of two coaxial anchors in clay. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138(3), 419-
422.
Merifield, R.S., Lyamin, A.V., and Sloan, S.W. (2006).
Three dimensional lower-bound solutions for the stability of plate
anchors in sand. Geotechnique, 56(2), 123-132.
Meyerhof, G. G., and Adams, J. I. (1968). The ultimate
uplift capacity of foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
5(4), 225-244.
Murray, E. J., and Geddes, J. D. (1989). Resistance of
passive inclined anchors in cohesionless medium. Geotechnique,
39(3), 417-431.
Kananyan, A. S. (1966). Experimental investigation of the
stability of bases of anchor foundations. Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 3(6), 387-392.
Rowe, R. K., and Davis, E. H. (1982). The behaviour of
anchor plates in sand. Geotechnique, 32(1), 25-41.
26
Thank you

27