Geomechanics and Engineering, Vol. 8, No.

4 (2015) 615-630
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/gae.2015.8.4.615 615

 
Uplift response of multi-plate helical anchors in cohesive soil
Ahmet Demir 1 and Bahadir Ok 2a
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Osmaniye Korkut Ata University,
Karacaoğlan Campus 80000 Merkez / Osmaniye, TURKEY
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Adana Science and Technology University,
01180 Seyhan / Adana, TURKEY

(Received July 11, 2014, Revised October 09, 2014, Accepted January 16, 2015)

Abstract. The use of helical anchors has been extensively beyond their traditional use in the electrical
power industry in recent years. They are commonly used in more traditional civil engineering infrastructure
applications so that the advantages of rapid installation and immediate loading capability. The majority of
the research has been directed toward the tensile uplift behaviour of single anchors (only one plate) by far.
However, anchors commonly have more than one plate. Moreover, no thorough numerical and experimental
analyses have been performed to determine the ultimate pullout loads of multi-plate anchors. The
understanding of behavior of these anchors is unsatisfactory and the existing design methods have shown to
be largely inappropriate and inadequate for a framework adopted by engineers. So, a better understanding of
helical anchor behavior will lead to increased confidence in design, a wider acceptance as a foundation
alternative, and more economic and safer designs. The main aim of this research is to use numerical
modeling techniques to better understand multi-plate helical anchor foundation behavior in soft clay soils.
Experimental and numerical investigations into the uplift capacity of helical anchor in soft clay have been
conducted in this study. A total of 6 laboratory tests were carried out using helical anchor plate with a
diameter of 0.05 m. The results of physical and computational studies investigating the uplift response of
helical anchors in soft clay show that maximum resistances depend on anchor embedment ratio and anchor
spacing ratio S/D. Agreement between uplift capacities from laboratory tests and finite element modelling
using PLAXIS is excellent for anchors up to embedment ratios of 6.

Keywords:  uplift capacity; helical anchors; soft clay; breakout factor; finite element analysis

1. Introduction 

Soil anchors create an important component of many civil engineering structures. The primary
function of these anchors is to transmit upward forces to the soil at certain depth below the ground.
In some structures, they are also designed to resist compressive forces, moments and combinations
of these forces. Different types of anchors are being used in the field depending upon the
magnitude and type of loading, type of structure and sub-soil conditions. Especially, helical
anchors which are one of the soil anchor types have been used to resist tension loading for a

Corresponding author, Assistant Professor, Dr., E-mail: ahmetdemir@osmaniye.edu.tr

a
Research Assistant, E-mail: bahadirok@adanabtu.edu.tr

Copyright © 2015 Techno-Press, Ltd.

http://www.techno-press.org/?journal=gae&subpage=7 ISSN: 2005-307X (Print), 2092-6219 (Online)
616 Ahmet Demir and Bahadir Ok

variety of structures such as transmission towers and cell phone towers, and resist uplift loading
from buoyancy effects, such as in buried pipelines. Both single-plate and multi-plate helical
anchors are in common use, and the selection for a particular design problem depends on a number
of factors, including soil type, loading, availability, and installation equipment. The behavior of
multi-plate helical anchors may also be dependent on the geometry used; (i.e., the number,
diameter and spacing of the helices).
Most of studies have been performed model tests on single helix anchors in an attempt to
develop semiempirical theories that can be used to estimate the capacity of anchors in soil. For
anchors in clay, results can be found in the works of Vesic (1971), Meyerhof and Adams (1968),
Meyerhof (1973), and Das (1978, 1980). All the aforementioned studies are limited to anchors
with a single helix.
Some studies of helical anchor systems have been performed both in the laboratory and in the
field to study the behavior of multi-helix screw anchors in a variety of soils (Mitsch and Clemence
1985, Ghaly et al. 1991). However, most existing theoretical and experimental studies have been
focused on predicting the anchor behaviour and capacity more in cohesionless soil than in
cohesive soil (Singh and Ramaswamy 2008). Moreover, there have been few detailed studies
performed on the behavior of multi-helix anchors in clays and no systematic investigation of their
behavior in soil deposits (Weikart and Clemence 1987, Mitsch and Clemence 1985, Mooney et al.
1985, Lutenegger et al. 1988, Hoyt and Clemence 1991, Narasimha Rao et al. 1991, 1993,
Merifield 2011).
The research reported herein compares computations using the finite element package PLAXIS
2D V2011, specially developed for the analysis of deformation and stability in geotechnical
engineering problems (Brinkgreve and Vermeer 1998), with results from the laboratory model
study. Comparisons are also drawn with predictions from a number of previous theoretical design
methods based on either limit state or finite element analyses. The findings will help in a better
understanding of the helical anchor plates design with a different embedment depth and with a
different footing geometry. It is expected that the information presented in this study will provide a
contribution to the literature results and will be an alternative source for the design and
applications for geotechnical engineers. This will result in a decrease in the cost of construction
and save simplicity and time for the engineer, the contractor and the owner of the construction.

2. Experimental investigations

2.1 General

The experimental program, which consists of a total of 6 laboratory model tests conducted for
different embedment ratios H/D from 1 to 6 in soft clay, was carried out using the facility in the
Geotechnical Laboratory of the Civil Engineering Department at the University of Osmaniye
Korkut Ata. The facility and a typical model are given in Fig. 1.

2.2 Test setup and loading arrangements

Loading tests were performed using a rigid model helical anchor plate fabricated from mild
steel, with a thickness of 6 mm. The helical anchor plate had a diameter of 5 cm and it was fixed to
the anchor bolt to give extra rigidity to the plates. Stainless steel rod of 6 mm diameter were used
as anchor rod and was connected to model helical anchor by threaded nuts fixed to the anchor
 Uplift response of multi-plate helical anchors in cohesive soil 617

(a) (b)
Fig. 1 Test set-up: (a) overview; (b) helical anchor plate

plate.
Tests were conducted in a circular steel tank with dimensions of 0.6 m (diameter) and 0.6 m
(depth). The bottom and vertical edges of the tank were made up using steel plates with a thickness
of 12 mm to avoid lateral yielding during the soil placement and loading of the model helical
anchor plate.
The model helical anchor was pulled out by a motorized gearbox arrangement attached to
loading frame located above the tank. A 7.5 horsepower DC motor with a speed control unit was
used to supply the necessary power to pull out the anchors. In the present work the speed of the
motor was adjusted by the speed control unit so as to give an anchor displacement rate of 2.33
mm/min. The pullout displacement was transmitted to the model anchor through the anchor rod,
connected to the loading arrangement. While uplift load was taken using a load cell installed
between the jack and the model helical anchor, the displacement of the helical anchor was
measured with the help of two LVTDs of 0.01 mm sensitivity suitably connected to the anchor rod.
A schematic diagram of the pullout test setup is given in Fig. 2.

2.3 The soil properties

The soft clay used in this research was obtained from locally available soil, which two test pit
excavations were performed, in the Adana Metropolitan Municipality’s (AMM) Water Treatment
Facility Center (WTFC) located in west part of Adana, Turkey. After conducting required
conventional laboratory tests (sieve and hydrometer analysis, moisture content analysis, unit
weight analysis, liquid and plastic limit analyses, unconfined compression test) the soil was
prepared for model tests. The particle size distribution of the clay soil is shown in Fig. 3. The soil
618 Ahmet Demir and Bahadir Ok

Fig. 2 General layout of apparatus for the model test

was identified as high plasticity inorganic clay, CH according to the unified soil classification
system. The values of liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of soft soil were obtained as
53%, 22% and 31%, respectively. The values of specific gravity and the undrained shear strength
of clay soil were obtained as 26.0 kN/m3 and 20 kPa, respectively. The characteristics of the soft
soil determined through an extensive testing program that consisted of a combination of laboratory
and in situ tests were given in detail by Demir et al. (2013).

Fig. 3 Particle size distribution for soft clay

 Uplift response of multi-plate helical anchors in cohesive soil 619

2.4 Experimental procedure

The soft clay pulverized was thoroughly mixed with required amount of water (n = %35). To
achieve uniform moisture distribution, the wet soil was placed in air tight plastic containers and
stored for 2 to 3 days before being used in experimental study. The soft soil was placed in the test
tank in layers with small quantities which were tapped gently with a special hammer and spread
uniformly. After filling the tank to the base level of the anchor, the anchor with the connecting rod
was placed and the filling operation continued until the required embedment depth was achieved.
The anchors were pulled out at the prescribed rates and the resistance to pullout was recorded by
tension load cell at regular displacements until there is a drop in anchor capacity or the
displacement becomes equal to half of the anchor diameter. For each test, the load-displacement
readings were recorded with a twenty-nine-channel data-logger unit (ALMEMO 5690 series
Autonomous Data Acquisition System) and converted to produce values of the displacement at
ground level and load using The AMR WinControl software package, which has been specially
developed for data acquisition and measured data processing with ALMEMO equipment, on a PC.
The degree of saturation was also calculated by taking undisturbed samples from the tank in tests.
The average degree of saturation by this placement method was achieved as about 93.0%.

3. Finite element modeling

The FE analyses have been primarily performed to obtain the load–displacement curves in relation
to different embedment ratios (H/D = 1-6) for rigid helical anchor plate (single helical anchor
plate) in soft clay with the same model geometries as in the tests. FE modeling has the advantages
that parameters may be easily varied, and details of stresses and deformations throughout the
system may be studied. FE analysis is a powerful mathematical tool that makes it possible to solve
complex engineering problems. The finite-element method is a well-established numerical analysis
technique used widely in many civil-engineering applications, both for research and the solution of
real engineering problems. The constitutive behavior of the soils can be successfully modelled
with numerical analyses. The finite-element method is one of the mathematical methods in which
continuous media is divided into finite elements with different geometries. It provides the
advantage of idealizing the material behaviour of the soil, which is non-linear with plastic
deformations and is stress-path dependent, in a more rational manner. The finite-element method
can also be particularly useful for identifying the patterns of deformations and stress distribution
during deformation and at the ultimate state. Because of these capabilities of the finite-element
method, it is possible to model the construction method and investigate the behaviour of uplift of
helical anchor plates and the surrounding soil throughout the construction process, not just for the
limit equilibrium conditions (Laman and Yildiz 2007). The FE analyses were conducted using the
program Plaxis 2D-V2011. It is a finite-element package that is specially developed for the
analysis of deformation and stability in geotechnical engineering problems (Brinkgreve and
Vermeer 1998). In order to simplify the geometry of this problem, The FE analyses were carried
out using an axisymmetric model for helical anchor plates in soft clay soil with the aim of better
understanding the fundamental mechanics of the problem. This effectively eliminates the
difficulties in modeling the anchor’s helical pitch and the anchors are, therefore, idealized as
embedded circular plates (Merifield 2011). During the generation of the mesh, 15-node triangular
elements were selected in preference to the alternative 6-noded versions in order to provide greater
620 Ahmet Demir and Bahadir Ok

accuracy in the determination of stresses. The Plaxis software used in this study incorporates a
fully automatic mesh-generation procedure, in which the geometry is divided into elements of the
basic element type, and compatible structural elements. Five different mesh densities are available
in Plaxis, ranging from very coarse to very fine. In order to obtain the most suitable mesh for the
present study, preliminary analysis using the five available levels of global mesh coarseness were
performed. It was decided to use the medium mesh with a refinement line around the helical
anchor plates in all the analyses, since there is not too much difference in the results for different
mesh configurations. A typical finite element mesh composed of the soil and multi-plate circular
anchors, together with the boundary conditions and the geometry of the soil system used, is shown
in Fig. 4. Although it is likely that shaft friction contributes to the capacity, the term is generally
ignored in anchor design because of the uncertainties involved (Merifield 2011). So, the shaft was
not considered in the FE analyses.

Fig. 4 Typical mesh configurations in the FE Analyses

Table 1 Values of Soft Soil parameters used in PLAXIS analyses

Soft clay
Parameter
Value
Unit weight, γn (kN/m3 ) 18
Modified compression index, * 0.085
Modified swelling index, * 0.035
Cohesion, c′ (kN/m2 ) 12.5
Friction angle, ϕ′ (degrees) 25.0
Dilatancy angle,  (degrees) (ϕ′ − 30) 0
Poisson’s ratio for unloading/reloading, vur 0.15
Coefficient of lateral stress in normal consolidation, Konc 0.5774
Tangent of CSL, M 1.242
 Uplift response of multi-plate helical anchors in cohesive soil 621

An elasto-plastic model described as the Soft Soil Model (SSM) was selected from those
available in PLAXIS to describe the non-linear soft clay soil behaviour in this study. The Soft Soil
model is capable to simulate to soil behaviour under general states of stress. For general states of
stress, the plastic behaviour of soft soil model is defined by a total of six yield functions; three
compression yield functions and three Mohr-Coulomb yield functions (Plaxis 2011). The soil
parameters used in the main investigation, which were obtained from conventional laboratory tests,
are shown in Table 1 (ASTM D 2435-96 1998).

4. Comparison between results from PLAXIS analyses and physical modelling

Experimental and numerical studies were performed to investigate the effect of embedment
ratio of helical anchor plate (single plate) buried in soft clay soil. A total of 6 tests and analyses
were carried out using six different embedment ratio changing from H/D = 1 to 6 and including the
uplift loading. The uplift resistance (Qu)-displacement ratio (s/D) curves of the single helical plate
case for different H/D ratios including uplift loading are given in Fig. 5.
The uplift displacement changes presented in Fig. 5 are non-dimensional. The displacement
ratio (s/D) is defined as the ratio of anchor plate displacement (s) to the diameter of anchor plate
(D). Comparisons for anchors with embedment ratios, H/D = 1-3 and 4-6, considered as typical
examples of shallow and fairly deep anchors, are included in the figure, respectively. As seen from
the figure that the variation of uplift load with displacement from the FE analyses shows generally
good agreement in the pre-peak region with the physical modelling obtained from the laboratory
tests for all anchor depths.
In accordance with the trends shown on Fig. 5, a two-phase load-displacement behavior is
observed for shallow and deep anchors, respectively. In the case of shallow anchors in soft clay, it
shows an initial rapid increase of pullout load with displacement followed by a non-linear increase
of pullout load, and finally almost asymptotic to the displacement axis. Whereas, it presents an
initial rapid increase of uplift load with displacement followed by nonlinear behaviour in the case
of deep anchors.
Uplift capacities are often expressed in dimensionless form as breakout factors which are given
below (Singh and Ramaswamy 2008)

Qu  A  cu  Fc    H  (1)

Where Fc is the breakout factor, Qu is the maximum uplift resistance,  is the soil unit weight,
cu is the soil undrained shear strength and H and A are the anchor embedment depth and area,
respectively. The anchors can also be classified as shallow or deep, depending on their mode of
failure that is shown in Fig. 6 (Merifield 2011). An anchor is classified as shallow when the
observed failure mechanism reaches the surface at ultimate collapse (Figs. 6(a) and (b)). In
contrast, a deep anchor is one whose failure mode is characterized by localized shear around the
anchor(s) and is not affected by the location of the soil surface (Figs. 6(c) and (d)).

4.1 Single-plate anchors

The comparison of breakout factors obtained from the PLAXIS (FE) analyses with lower
bound limit analysis solutions of Merifield et al. (2003), finite- element analyses of Merifield
622 Ahmet Demir and Bahadir Ok

(a) H/D = 1 (b) H/D = 2

(c) H/D = 3 (d) H/D = 4

(e) H/D = 5 (f) H/D = 6

Fig. 5 Comparison between FE Analyses and test data for different H/D
 Uplift response of multi-plate helical anchors in cohesive soil 623

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 6 Shallow and deep anchor behavior: (a) and (b) shallow failure mechanism; (c) global deep
failure mechanism; (d) local deep failure mechanism (Merifield 2011)

Fig. 7 Comparison of breakout factors for circular anchors in clay

(2011) and model test results of Singh and Ramaswamy (2008) is shown in Fig. 7 for single
circular plate anchors. The present numerical results compare well with the numerical and
analytical results of Merifield and laboratory test results of Singh and Ramaswamy (2008) for
shallow anchor conditions. However, the breakout factor values proposed by Merifield
624 Ahmet Demir and Bahadir Ok

(a) Shallow conditions

(b) Deep conditions

Fig. 8 Comparison of analytical and PLAXIS (FE) results for breakout factors of multi-plate anchor system

overestimate the breakout factors for deep anchor conditions. Also, the breakout factors obtained
using the model test results of Singh and Ramaswamy (2008) are clearly over-conservative and as
much as 10% below the PLAXIS (FE) values for deep anchor conditions.

4.2 Shallow and deep multi-plate anchors

The breakout factors computed from PLAXIS (FE) analyses for a range of anchor spacing, S
from 0.5 to 3.0 are included in Figs. 8(a) and (b) for shallow (H/D = 2) and deep (H/D = 8) anchor
 Uplift response of multi-plate helical anchors in cohesive soil 625

conditions, respectively. Results are shown graphically in this figures for anchors with two, three
and four plates (n = 2, 3 and 4). As seen from the Fig. 8 that it shows the transition from a global
deep failure mechanism, surrounding all anchor plates, to an individual deep failure mechanism, in
which a local failure mechanism exists around each anchor plate. The transition between the two
cases occurs when the anchor spacing ratio reaches a critical value, when S/D ≥ (S/D)cr.
The change in response in the soil above the multiplate anchors, which is dependent on anchor
embedment, was also reflected in the displacement contours obtained from PLAXIS (FE) analyses
shown in Figs. 9 and 10. As seen from the Fig. 9 that, for an anchor at relatively shallow depth

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 9 Displacement contours illustrating transition from shallow global to shallow individual
plate failure mode (n = 4)
626 Ahmet Demir and Bahadir Ok

(H ≤ Hcr), the soil displacements, and hence increased shear stresses, extend to the soil surface.
The displacement contours for a number of problems in which the overburden and/or anchor
spacing are sufficient to lead to a deep failure mode are shown in Fig. 10. These figures illustrate
the transition between the two types of deep anchor failure mechanism previously shown in Figs.
6(c) and (d).
For a shallow and deep global failure mode that encloses all the anchor plates in Fig. 6, the
expressions in Table 2 for anchors with a total of n individual plates is proposed, respectively
The expressions shown in Fig. 8 appear to provide a reasonable estimate for the cases of a
global shallow and deep failure mechanism.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 10 Displacement contours illustrating transition from deep global to deep individual plate
failure mode (n = 2)
 Uplift response of multi-plate helical anchors in cohesive soil 627

Table 2 Expressions of breakout factor for different cases

For shallow conditions
S
Fc  3  1.43   n  1  3  0.318   H/D  (H/D)cr and S/D  (S/D)cr
D
Fc max  n  3  1.53  H/D  (H/D)cr and S/D  (S/D)cr
For deep conditions
S
Fc  3  2.2   n  1  3  0.509   H/D  (H/D)cr and S/D  (S/D)cr
D
Fc max  n  3  2.2  H/D  (H/D)cr and S/D  (S/D)cr

Table 3 Comparison of test results (Narasimha Rao et al. 1991) and PLAXIS (FE) results
Narasimha Rao et al. (1991) This study
Test No. n S/D H/D Qu-exp (kN) Qu-calc / Qu-exp Qu-calc (kN) Qu-calc / Qu-exp
1 1 4.58 4.58 0.84 1.72 0.70 0.83
2 2 2.29 2.29 0.97 1.49 1.07 1.10
3 3 1.53 1.53 1.34 1.09 1.35 1.01
4 1 4.58 4.58 0.67 1.64 0.54 0.81
5 2 2.29 2.29 0.91 1.2 1.07 1.17
6 3 1.53 1.53 0.97 1.12 1.35 1.39
7 1 4.58 4.58 0.55 1.37 0.37 0.68
8 2 2.29 2.29 0.63 1.19 0.60 0.95
9 3 1.53 1.53 0.73 1.03 0.73 1.00
10 1 3.05 3.05 1.48 1.1 0.98 0.66
11 2 1.53 1.53 1.67 0.97 1.33 0.79
12 3 1.02 1.02 1.72 0.94 1.33 0.77
13 2 4.00 6.13 0.69 1.43 0.52 0.75
14 3 2.00 6.13 0.83 1.19 0.77 0.93
15 4 1.33 6.13 0.9 1.10 0.69 0.76
16 2 1.67 6.13 0.65 1.19 0.45 0.69
17 3 0.83 6.13 0.71 1.09 0.67 0.94
18 2 4.00 6.13 1.52 1.43 1.26 0.83
19 3 2.00 6.13 1.86 1.16 1.89 1.02
20 4 1.33 6.13 2.13 1.01 1.86 0.87
21 2 1.67 6.13 1.19 1.41 0.96 0.80
22 3 0.83 6.13 1.48 1.12 1.44 0.97

5. Comparison between results from PLAXIS analyses and established physical

modelling

The results from experimental programs conducted by Narasimha Rao et al. (1991) in relation
to the behavior of multiplate anchors in clay are summarized in Table 3. Small scale anchors
628 Ahmet Demir and Bahadir Ok

Fig. 11 Comparison between numerical and laboratory results for multihelical plate anchors

ranging in diameters from 100 mm to 150 mm were tested under uplift loading in soft to firm clays
in a number of different size clay test chambers. Full details of the experimental procedures and
apparatus can be found in Narasimha Rao et al. (1991). The variables in Table 3 include the
number of plates on each anchor tested n, the embedment ratio H/D, the anchor spacing ratio S/D,
and the measured experimental uplift-capacity Qu-exp.
As seen from the Table 3 that it shows a close agreement between the experimentally and using
the proposed method obtained capacities. It is also, as seen from Fig. 11 that it is indicated a close
agreement between the experimentally obtained capacities and the capacities calculated using the
proposed method. For the majority of cases, the calculated capacities are about within 15% of the
measured values, which is adequate for design purposes.

6. Limitations

There are several limitations that should be mentioned. The models created in this research
were based on data obtained from helical anchor pullout tests in cohesive soils, with a plate
diameter of roughly 0.05 m. The further testing and verification is recommended for the use of
these models in other soils or with significantly larger plate diameters. It is well known that
full-scale loading test results are valid, especially for in-situ conditions and for soil properties in
which the test was performed. However, a full-scale loading test is not economic, due to the
expensive cost in terms of time and money that is required for the construction, instrumentation
and testing. Therefore, small-scale model test studies are widely used as an alternative to full-scale
loading tests, despite of their scale-errors (Kaya and Ornek 2013, Dickin and Nazir 1999).

7. Conclusions

The understanding of the behavior of helical anchors is current unsatisfactory and has
essentially remained unchanged for 20 years. In this paper, the uplift capacity of multi-plate helical
 Uplift response of multi-plate helical anchors in cohesive soil 629

anchor embedded in soft clay was investigated using 2D FE program PLAXIS and by physical
laboratory modeling. Based on this investigation, the following main conclusions can be drawn:
● In general the results obtained from PLAXIS (FE) analyses produce good agreement with a
number of established methods of predicting the uplift capacity of multi-plate helical
anchors.
● The breakout factor, Fc for a multi-plate helical anchor embedded in a clayey soil has been
computed under undrained condition by using the results of PLAXIS (FE) analyses. The
magnitude of Fc is found to increase continuously with an increase in H/D up to a certain
critical embedment ratio (Hcr/D) beyond which Fc becomes almost constant.
● The displacement contours obtained from PLAXIS (FE) analyses show the transition from a
global deep failure mechanism, surrounding all anchor plates, to an individual deep failure
mechanism, in which a local failure mechanism exists around each anchor plate. The
transition between the two cases occurs when the anchor spacing ratio reaches a critical
value, when S/D ≥ (S/D)cr.
● A practical design framework for multiplate helical anchor foundations has been presented
to replace existing semiempirical design methods.
Nevertheless, the investigation is considered to have provided a useful basis for further research
leading to an increased understanding of the application of multi-plate helical anchors to the
ultimate uplift capacity and displacement problems.

References

ASTM D 2435-96 (1998), Standard test method for one-dimensional consolidation properties of soils;
Annual Book of ASTM standards (Volume 04.08), Soil and Rock (I), Standard, PA, USA, pp.207-216.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J. and Vermeer, P.A. (1998), Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses, A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Das, B.M. (1978), “Model tests for uplift capacity of foundations in clay”, Soil. Found., 18(2), 17-24.
Das, B.M. (1980), “A procedure for estimation of ultimate uplift capacity of foundations in clay”, Soil.
Found., 20(1), 77-82.
Demir, A., Laman, M., Yildiz, A. and Ornek, M. (2013), “Large scale field tests on geogrid-reinforced
granular fill underlain by clay soil”, 38, 1-15.
Dickin, E.A. and Nazir, R. (1999), “Moment carrying capacity of short pile foundations in cohesionless soil”,
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 125(1), 1-10.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A. and Hanna, M. (1991), “Uplift behavior of screw anchors in sand”, J. Geotech. Eng.
Div. ASCE, 117(5), 773-793.
Hoyt, R.M. and Clemence, S.P. (1991), “Uplift capacity of helical anchors in soil”, Proceedings 12th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering [Comptes Rendus du Congres
International de Mecanique des Sols et des Travaux de Fondations], Volume 2, A.A. Balkema Publishers,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 1019-1022.
Kaya, N. and Ornek, M. (2013), “Experimental and numerical studies of t-shaped footings”, Acta
Geotechnica Slovenica, 1, 43-58.
Laman, M. and Yildiz, A. (2007), “Numerical studies of ring foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand”,
Geosynth. Int., 14(2), 1-13.
Lutenegger, A.J., Smith, B.L. and Kabir, M.G. (1988), “Use of in situ tests to predict uplift performance of
multi helix anchors”, (GSP 16), Special topics in foundations ASCE, New York, NY, USA, pp. 93-110.
Merifield, R.S. (2011), “Ultimate uplift capacity of multiplate helical type anchors in clay”, J. Geotech.
630 Ahmet Demir and Bahadir Ok

Geoenviron. Eng., 137(7), 704-716.

Merifield, R.S., Lyamin, A.V., Sloan, S.W. and Yu, H.S. (2003), “Three-dimensional lower bound solutions
for stability of plate anchors in clay”, J. Geotech. Geoenviron Eng., ASCE, 129(3), 243-253.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1973). “Uplift resistance of inclined anchors and piles”, Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering [Comptes Rendus du Congres
International de Mecanique des Sols et des Travaux de Fondations], Vol. 2:1, A.A. Balkema Publishers,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 167-172.
Meyerhof, G.G. and Adams, J.I. (1968), “The ultimate uplift capacity of foundations”, Can. Geotech. J.,
5(4), 225-244.
Mitsch, M.P. and Clemence, S.P. (1985), “Uplift capacity of helix anchors in sand”, In: Uplift Behavior
Anchor Foundations in Soil, ASCE, pp. 26-47.
Mooney, J.S., Adamczak, S.J. and Clemence, S.P. (1985), “Uplift capacity of helix anchors in clay and silt”,
In: Uplift Behavior of Anchor Foundations in Soil, ASCE, pp. 48-72.
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N. and Shetty, M.D. (1991), “The behavior of model screw piles in
cohesive soils”, Soil. Found., 31(2), 35-50.
Narasimha Rao, S., Prasad, Y.V.S.N. and Veeresh, C. (1993), “Behavior of embedded model screw anchors
in soft clays” Géotechnique, 43(4), 605-614.
Singh, S.P. and Ramaswamy, S.V. (2008), “Contribution of suction force to undrained breakout capacity of
plate anchors”, International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Goa,
India, October, pp. 3166-3173.
Vesic, A.S. (1971), “Breakout resistance of objects embedded in ocean bottom”, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div.,
ASCE, 97(9), 1183-1205.
Weikart, A.M. and Clemence, S.P. (1987), “Helix anchor foundations two case histories”, (GSP 8),
Foundations for Transmission Line Towers ASCE, New York, pp. 72-80.

CC