Soil Reinforcement For Anchor Plates And Uplift Response PDF Download

The design of many structures need to foundation systems to resist vertical or horizontal uplift loads. As part of a larger effort to improve the performance of foundation systems, the development of guidelines for anchor system design and installation. The different structures like transmission towers, tunnels, sea walls, buried pipelines; retaining wall and etc are subjected to considerable uplift forces. In such cases, an absorbing and economic design solution may be obtained through the use of tension members. These elements, which are related to as anchors, are generally fixed to the structure and embedded in the ground to effective depth so that they can resist uplifting forces, will safety. Many researchers have investigated the influence of different parameters on the uplift response of horizontal anchors in sand. Researchers such as Mors (1959), Giffels et al (1960), Balla (1961), Turner (1962), Ireland (1963), Sutherland (1965), Mariupolskii (1965), Kananyan (1966), Baker and Konder (1966), Adams and Hayes (1967), Mors (1959), Balla (1961), Turner (1962), Ireland (1963), Andreadis et al, (1981), Dickin (1988), Frydman and Shaham (1989), Remeshbabu (1998), Krishna (2000), Fargic and Marovic (2003), Merfield and Sloan(2006), Dickin and Lama (2007), Kumar and Bhoi (2008), Kuzer and Kumar (2009), Niroumand et al. (2009 & 2011) were concerned with the general solution especially for an ultimate uplift capacity based on experimental works in sand. Also, many numerical studies have been carried out on the behavior of symmetrical anchor plates such as Meyerhof & Adams (1968) until the most recent analysis such as Kuzar ad Kumar (2009) are reviewed. This analysis was pioneered by Vesic (1971),Sarac(1989) and Smit (1989), Krishna(2000), Fargic and Marovic (2003), Merfield and Sloan(2006), Dickin & Laman(2007), Kumar and Bhoi (2008), Kuzer & Kumar(2009) and Niroumand et al. (2011). Increasing use of symmetrical anchor plates to resist uplift response may be achieved by increasing the size and depth of an anchor or the improvement of soil in which these anchors are embedded, or both. In restricted situations, increasing the size and depth of an anchor may not be economical compared with other alternatives. On the other hand, soil improvement can be attained by the inclusion of soil reinforcement to resist larger uplift forces. However, few investigations on the behavior of horizontal plates in a reinforced soil bed under uplift loads were reported. Subbarao et al. 1988 studied the improvement in uplift capacity by using geotextiles as ties to reinforced concrete model anchors embedded in sand. Selvadurai (1989, 1993) reported significant enhancement, of the order of 80 to 100%, in the uplift capacity of pipelines embedded in fine and coarse-grained soil beds reinforced by inclusion of geogrids immediately above the pipeline in an inclined configuration. Krishnaswamy and Parashar (1991) (1994) studied the uplift behavior of circular plates and rectangular plates embedded in cohesive and cohesionless soils with and without geosynthetic reinforcement and reported that the geocomposite reinforcement offered higher uplift resistance than both geogrid and geotextile reinforcement. Ilamparuthi and Dickin (2001) investigated the influence of soil reinforcement on the uplift behavior of model belled piles embedded in sand. A cylindrical gravel-filled geogrid cell was placed around the enlarged pile base. It was reported that uplift response increases with the diameter of the geogrid cell, sand density, pile bell diameter, and embedment. Niroumand et al. (20011) investigated the influence of soil reinforcement and grid fixed reinforced (GFR) on the uplift behavior of model symmetrical anchor plates embedded in sand. This book decries more information on history of symmetrical anchor plates in non-reinforced and reinforced and GFR conditions in sand.