# I. Introduction rectangular and generally they are employed as foundation elements for structures requiring resistance against breakout i.e., transmission towers, sheet pile walls and offshore floating structures. This requires an analysis of behaviour of the anchors. Several researchers (Mors, 1959;Balla, 1961;Baker and Konder, 1966;Meyerhof and Adams, 1968;Vesic, 1971; Clemence and Veesaert, 1977;Sutherland et al., 1982;Saeedy, 1987;Murray and Geddes, 1987;Ghaly et al.,1991;Tom, 2012)analysed the breakout resistance of earth anchors using limit equilibrium method. Tagaya et al. (1988) introduced the theoretical formulae for the computation of the anchor pullout resistance based on elostoplastic finite element method, whereas analyses presented by Merifield and Sloan (2006) and Kumar and Kouzer (2008), Tang et al. (2014), Hao et al. (2014) and Bhattacharya and Kumar (2016) were based on the limit analysis coupled with finite element method. In respect to a dense soil, Balla (1961) studied model and field results and found that, for circular closely approximated to an arc of a circle. From theoretical considerations, the angle of failure surface breakout resistance, P un which is the summation of soil weight contained in the failure zone and resistance to shearing developed on the failure surface was calculated as ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? = D H F D H F H P un , , 3 1 3 ? ? ? (1) the height of circular anchor,? is the soil unit weight and F 1 (?, H/D), F 3 (?, H/D) are the functions developed by Balla (1961). Balla's (1961) analysis showed a good agreement for the dense sand up-to the embedment medium sand, the analysis overestimated the net breakout resistance. For embedment ratio greater than 5 even in dense sand, the analysis overestimated the breakout resistance due to deep anchor effects wherein the failure zone did not reach the ground level. Baker and Konder (1966) conducted several laboratory model tests and used dimensional analysis to predict the ultimate uplift capacity, P u as given by the following expressions. For shallow circular anchors where, r and t are radius and the thickness of anchor plate respectively and H is the depth of embedment. C 1 , angle of soil internal friction and relative density of compaction. For shallow anchors, the model test results of Baker and Konder (1966) agreed well with the predictions based on Balla's (1961) theory. Meyerhof and Adams (1968) reported a semitheoretical expression for breakout resistance on the basis of laboratory tests data. For the actual failure surface, simplified geometry was assumed. The failure surface makes an angle, ? with the horizontal in the where, W is the weight of cylindrical soil mass above the circular anchor and S F is the shape factor. The breakout coefficient, K u depends on soil friction angle, ? and was taken equal to 0.95 for ? varying from 30 o to 48 o . The net breakout resistance, P un was expressed as AH F P q un ? = (5) The breakout factor, F q is given as ? tan 1 2 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + = D H K D H m F u q (6) Graphs or tables are used to obtain the coefficient, m. Vesic (1971) analysed the case of an explosive point charge for the expansion of a spherical cavity located close to the surface of a semi-infinite, homogeneous and isotropic ground. At the ground case of a circular anchor embedded in sand, the breakout pressure, q u was computed as q u F A H q ? = (7) where, A is the area of circular anchor and F q is the breakout factor. The values of F q are computed for ? ratios in the range, 0.5 to 8. Clemence and Veesaert (1977) studied the results of laboratory experiments and made an approximation of the observed failure surface to an inverted truncated cone with an apex angle of ?/2, going upwards from the anchor base. The breakout resistance includes the weight of soil within this cone and the shearing resistance developed along the failure surface. For shallow laid circular anchors, the net breakout resistance, P un was estimated in terms of the breakout factor, F q as given by the following expressions. H A P F un q ? = (8) Or ( ) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? = 2 tan 33 . 5 2 tan 8 4 3 2 tan 5 . 0 2 cos tan 4 2 2 2 2 0 ? ? ? ? ? D H D H D H D H K F q (9) where, K 0 is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest. Murray and Geddes (1987) have reported the solutions with both limit equilibrium and limit analyses and made a comparison of the solutions with experimental results for a circular anchor. With the limit equilibrium analysis, the ultimate breakout resistance, P u was expressed by the following equation. # ( ) (10) In the above equation, A is the area of circular anchor. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? + + = ? ? ? ? ? sin 2 2 tan 3 2 1 2 sin sin 2 1 D H D H AH P u? ? tan 2 1 D H AH P u + = (11) Saeedy (1987) estimated the uplift capacity of circular plate anchors embedded in sand with the assumption of a failure surface as an arc of a logarithmic spiral. The effect of deep condition and compaction during the uplift were considered in this ( )µ ? H A F P q u = (12) where, ? is the compaction factor which is the function of relative density of compaction. (1963), Mariupol'skii (1965), Kananyan (1966), Adams and Hayes (1967) and Sakai et al. (2007). A number of these studies were primarily concerned with testing foundations for transmission towers (Mors, 1959;Balla, 1961;Turner, 1962 andIreland, 1963). In the present study, a total of seven experimental results (Balla, 1961;Baker and Konder, 1966;Bemben and Kupferman, 1975;Ovesen, 1981 With upper bound limit solution, the breakout resistance was expressed by the following equation. Semi-empirical relationships are also available to estimate the breakout resistance of anchors in sand. This refers to the field and/or model testing on horizontal circular anchors or belled piles by Balla (1961), Sutherland (1965) and Baker and Konder (1966), Mors (1959), Giffels et al. (1960), Turner (1962), Ireland analysis. To account for these conditions, the uplift capacity was expressed as level, the failure surfaces made an angle of (45 o ??/2). The analysis is confined to embedment ratios, ? to the frustum of a cone, making an angle ? with the horizontal and meeting the ground level. To compute the vertical soil reaction, R v acting on the failure surface, Kötter's (1903) equation is integrated. The breakout resistance is finally obtained with the summation of R v and total weight, W of soil mass contained in the failure zone. a) Failure Surface Geometry some initial trials, the following expression for ? is chosen for the analysis. where, dp is the elemental soil reaction pressure along the failure surface, ds is the elemental failure surface length, ? is the soil friction angle, d? is the elemental angle and ? is the angle of failure plane made by the tangent at the point under consideration with the horizontal. Estimation of Uplift Capacity of Horizontal Plate Anchor in Sand and Geddes, 1987) and two field test results (Sutherland et al., 1982;Tucker, 1987) are referred for comparison. ( ) # Global sin dp ds ? ? ? = +(15) Integration of Eq. ( 15) gives, ( ) 1 sin C s p + + = ? ? ? (16) Eq. ( 16) gives the soil reactive pressure that, pressure p has zero value at point B, corresponding to s = 0. Using this condition, C 1 becomes zero and Eq.( 16) finally becomes ( ) In the force diagram as shown in Fig. 2, AB is a distribution on failure plane, AB, and s is the distance measured from point B (Fig. 2). The integration constant, C 1 in Eq. ( 16) is obtained from the condition sin p s = ? ? + ?( Substituting Eqs. ( 18) and ( 19) into Eq. ( 17), the elemental soil reaction, dR is obtained as ( ) sin cos dr dR rd s = ? ? ? + ? ? (20) ? ? cos 2 2 tan ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + = dr r D H s (21) Substituting Eq. ( 21) into Eq. ( 20), the elemental soil reaction, dR is rewritten as In the failure wedge shown in Figs. 3b and 3c, ds). The height of this element is dH, with a slanted height ds and it is located at a distance, s as measured from the ground surface. ( ) ? ? ? ? ? ? d rdr dr r D H dR ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? + + =2 From Fig. 3a, the distance, s is obtained as ( ) ? ? ? ? ? ? d rdr dr r dr r D H dR ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? + + = 2 2 2 2 2 tan 2 cos sin (23) With dr 2 ? 0, Eq. ( 23) becomes ( ) ? ? ? ? ? ? d dr r rdr D H dR ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + = 2 2 2 tan cos sin (24) ( ) ( ) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? d dr r rdr D H dR v + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + = cos 2e) Net Breakout Resistance v un R W P 2 ? = (28) ( ) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + + ? = C D D C D C un P 3 4 2 3 8 3 3 3 2 cos 2 3 2 sin 6 ? ? ? ? (29) where, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + = ? 3 2 tan 2 H D C and D = diameter of the circular anchor plate. The above simple expression gives the net breakout resistance of a horizontal circular plate anchor calculations with no need of any tables or graphs. The breakout factor, F q is given as H A P F un q ? = (30) where, A is the area of horizontal circular anchor plate. # III. Comparison with the Experimental Data The results of theoretical predictions (Balla, 1961 ( ) ( ) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + ? + ? ? ? ? ? ? + + + = 2 tan 3 4 2 tan cos 6 cos sin 2 2 D H D D D H R v ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? + = 8 3 3 2 tan 3 tan D D H W ? ? ? ? (27) Murray and Geddes, 1987) are presented in Table 1a and comparisons with two field results reported by Sutherland et al. (1982) and Tucker (1987) are deviations of the theoretical solutions with respect to the experimental results are reported in Tables 2a and 2b. For a better understanding of the relative predictive capability of the proposed solution, a cumulative frequency distribution of the data corresponding to the percentage deviations is further reported in Tables 3a and 3b. shows deviations in the range, 2% to 45% in 51 cases and in the remaining cases, the range is 55% to 100%. Predictions based on the solution proposed by Vesic (1971) show deviations in the range of 2% to 45% for 22 cases and in the remaining 27 cases, the deviations are as high as 50% to 100%. # Global The method of Clemence and Veesaert (1977) shows deviations in the range, 2% to 45% for 34 cases and in the remaining 19 cases, the deviations are as high as 50% to 100%. The solution proposed by Murray and Geddes (1987) shows absolute deviations in the range of 2% to 45% for 51 cases and in the remaining 2 cases, the deviations are as high as 50% to 100%. Saeedy's (1987) method shows deviations in the range, 2% to 45% in 46 cases and in the remaining case, the range is 55% to 100%. The proposed solution shows deviations in the range, 2% to 45% in 52 cases and in the remaining case, the range is 55% to 100%. Proposed solution and Saeedy's (1987) method show errors in the range, 0% to 5% in 9 and 12 cases respectively, whereas, in respect to the other methods, only 0 to 8 cases show deviations in this range. From the above discussion it is seen that, Balla's (1961) method makes better predictions in 96% of the cases when compared to the experimental data. # Estimation of Uplift Capacity of Horizontal Plate Anchor in Sand In general, Balla's (1961) method shows a good agreement for dense sand up-to the embedment ratio of 5. It requires a chart for using the required functions. Vesic's (1971) method shows a good performance in 45% of the cases. However, it also requires a chart or The method of Meyerhof and Adams (1968) makes good predictions in 96% of the cases; but two charts are needed to select the proper values of the net breakout factor and the shape coefficient. The method of Clemence and Veesaert (1977) makes good predictions in only 64% cases. It involves an assumption in respect to the coefficient of earth pressure at rest. The proposed analysis method considers failure surface in the form of frustum of a cone. It makes predictions that are very close to the experimental values in 98% cases. Thus, the performance appears to be superior to the other methods. Although the proposed analysis makes an approximation while using Kötter's (1903) equation, it is improved with a proper selection of the angle, ? as per Eq. ( 12). The integration is fairly simple, yielding a closed form expression for the net uplift resistance (Eq. 29), which is easy for calculations, with no need for graphs or tables. Kötter's (1903) equation plays a significant role in the analysis. # IV. Conclusions The proposed analysis method is simple giving a closed form solution. It is also easy for hand calculations. Kötter's (1903) equation is successfully employed for axi-symmetric conditions with a proper choice of angle at which the failure surface intersects the ground level. No assumptions are necessary for the coefficient of earth pressure and the results show a very close agreement with the experimental data. # References Références Referencias From Tables 3a and 3b it is seen that, in 28 out of 29 cases, Balla's (1961) theoretical method shows table for using a proper value of the breakout coefficient. ![varying in the range, 0 o to 50 o along with embedment II. Proposed Analysis Method Kötter's (1903) equation is used to compute the vertical soil reaction, R v along the failure surface. This equation which is valid for the plane strain condition was employed for the analysis of a retaining wall by Dewaikar and Halkude (2002a), for the stability analysis of open cuts in soil by Dewaikar and Halkude (2002b), for the computation of bearing capacity factor, N? by Dewaikar and Mohapatro (2003), analysis of rectangular and square anchors in cohesion less soil by Deshmukh et al. (2010) and uplift capacity of pile anchors in integration along a plane or a curved failure surface, this equation gives the soil reactive pressure distribution and with further integration, it yields the resultant soil reaction on the failure surface.](image-2.png "") ![Reaction on the Plane Failure Surface (Refer Fig.1) in the passive state of equilibrium, Kötter's (1903) equation for a curved failure surface for the plane strain condition is given as](image-3.png "") 1![Figure 1: Kötter's (1903) equation for a curved failure surface](image-4.png "Figure 1 :") 2![Figure 2: Forces on a failure wedge under plane strain condition](image-5.png "Figure 2 :") 17![Estimation of Uplift Capacity of Horizontal Plate Anchor in Sand 22 Year 2019 Global Journal of Researches in Engineering ( ) Volume XIx X Issue IV V ersion I E © 2019 Global Journals](image-6.png "17 )") © 2019 Global Journals 1aTable 1a: ContdExp.H?? ( o )Exp.Proposed Method Method Method Method Method Method?Exp. ResultsmH? kN/m 3Exp. Proposed Method Method Method Method Method Method values Method 1 2 3 4 5 6Ovesen0.02?( o ) 451?values 4.773.523.834.1423.25110.407 3.9574.45Resultsm kN/m 3 0.0445210Method 7.441 8.6882 7.143 6.5694 19.587 8.471 56 4.615(1987)0.05 0.0638 0.55 2.96 45 3 191.96 12.441.95 15.415 12.413 11.081 31.540 14.542 7.11 N.A. N.A. 6.571 2.216 1.63D = 0.020.10 0.08-38 1.11 4.45 45 4 303.207 19.503.200 24.064 19.64 3.03.31 16.195 46.265 22.168 10.45 9.782 3.826 2,41mBalla0.104553727.6334.635 25.862 N.A.63.764 31.351 14.360.1538 1.68 6.114.744.7684.785.15713.5175.7733.3(1961) Murray0.05184413.523.433.724.133.2310.213.892.5and0.20 0.0838 2.22 8.51 44 1.63 5.46.56 5.646.258 6.3376.42 6.027.090 5.3417.913 15.478.127 6.4834.05 4.0D = 0.09 m Geddes0.1544314.54 12.2614.405 12.3211.033 30.537 14.182 7.00.2438 2.77 11.08.668.5947.519.47622.811 10.8046.27(1987)0.23444.627.66 23.1527.968 23.20N.A.54.3826.74120.30 D = 0.0508 0.2538 3.33 11.78 11.059 44 5 35.19 26.4010.982 32.056 25.86 11.2011.718 28.392 13.902 N.A. 61.406 30.496.52 14.08mBemben0.30-46 44615.26 47.25 35.46 3.614.054 43.496 34.81 N.A.N.A. N.A.10.608 80.794.024 40.899 19.39 2.5and46211.137.719.232N.A.N.A.20.1318.6584.68Kupferman-N.A.N.A.46327.6620.3616.53432.569 14.0917.23(1975)N.A.N.A.46540.2428.9137.5166.1932.21514.63Estimation of Uplift Capacity of Horizontal Plate Anchor in Sand 1aEstimation of Uplift Capacity of Horizontal Plate Anchor in SandTable 1a: ContdExp.HH??? ( o )Exp. Proposed Method Method Method Method Method Method Exp. Proposed Method Method Method Method Method MethodResults Exp. Results m kN/m 3 m kN/m 3? ( o )??values valuesMethod Method1 12 233445566Baker and 0.52 17.942740.607 41.64247.57141.877N A108.951 49.64124.1620.0843 0.84 3.472.893.06N.A.N.A.8.923.2902.44Konder0.45 17.93 42632.760 32.04836.622 32.048N A74.45039.63518.133(1966)0.19431.97.136.527.226.975.89217.5727.6044.48Ilamparuthi0.37 17.89 42524.543 24.04827.211 23.785N A56.89329.61615.088et al. D=0.0756m 0.28 0.45 17.92 42 43 2.87 12.15 9 55.140 63.846 11.012.59 73.602 63.043 11.87 10.382 27.986 12.996 N A 142.079 78.727 35.319 6.64Year 201917 D =0.0504m 0.37 17.92 42 0.39 43 3.91 18.98 7.5 45.731 46.693 17.2919.98 53.500 46.693 17.9815.20 N A41.767 20.295 56.830 57.496 27.157 1029(2002)D = 0.1 m Sutherland (1982) Field Test H 0.47 0.59 0.69 Results m Sutherland 4.57 et al. 5.18 (1982) 6.4 et al. 0.30 17.92 42 43 4.75 24.74 43 5.97 35.64 43 6.91 48.36 41 1 4.47 -41 4 20 41 7 65.15 41 8 85.16 ? ? ( o ) ? Field kN/m 3 Test Method 1 23.27 33.54 42.73 3.21 16.73 40.57 50.82 Propose d Method Method Method Method Method Method 27.19 24.50 N.A. 54.874 27.336 13.76 39.64 33.18 N.A. 77.055 39.387 18.50 50.83 43.18 N.A. 96.687 51.243 23.35 3.284 3.10 3.170 9.642 3.686 2.41 17.688 16.85 15.849 40.07 19.836 9.66 43.417 40.0 N.A. 90.77 48.122 22.48 54.510 50.0 N.A. 112.97 60.247 27.82 2 3 4 5 6 42 1.91 1601 1351 1544 1445 1244 3655 1589 938.6 42 2.17 2251 1777 2067 1660 1777 4738 2109 1079 10.37 42 2.67 2064 2582 2553 2051 2195 5854 2553 1333.9 41 3 15.76 11.0 11.629 11.30 10.622 27.68 13.105 6.52 6 32.695 32.139 36.677 32.139 N A 74.652 39.734 18.061 D = 0.0378 0.45 17.97 42 12 68.635 106.073 123.259 105.85 N A 230.974 39.736 N A m 0.37 17.97 42 10 61.657 75.957 88.550 75.957 N A 117.018 85.533 N A 0.30 17.97 42 8 50.738 51.723 48.275 51.723 N A 142.032 60.261 28.078 N A: Not applicable Method 1: Meyerhof and Adams (1968) Method 3: Balla (1961) Method 5: Murray and Geddes (1987) Method 2: Saeedy (1987) Method 4: Clemence and Veesaert (1977) Note: Method 6: Vesic (1971)Journal of Researches in Engineering E ( ) Volume XIx X Issue IV V ersion ID = 2.39 m 7.0422.94 2562 2659423737023476908842632201GlobalNote:Method 1. Meyerhof and Adams (1968)Method 2. Saeedy (1987)Method 3.Balla (1961)Method 4.Clemence and Veesaert (1977)Method 5. Murray and Geddes (1987)Method 6.Vesic (1971)© 2019 Global Journals 1b 1cField Test H?Field Proposed Method Method Method Method Method Method? ( o ) ?ResultsmkN/m 3Test Method1234561.68381.38 4.73 3.914.4123.954.1211.544.7373.01.93421.59 7.95 5.145.805.184.95714.386.0363.411.91541.5 1.57 6.29 4.985.635.104.9514.035.883.36Tucker1.73241.5 1.42 6.69 4.485.0214.784.3912.835.2733.32(1987)10.372.14741.5 1.76 4.67 5.666.466.235.5615.796.7074.15D = 1.22 m1.95241.5 1.67.09 5.095.7615.184.9414.286.0128 4.102.19641.5 1.87.27 5.956.827.025.8616.337.0684.29MethodMethod 2.Saeedy (1987)Method 6. VesicMethod 3. Balla (1961) 2aEstimation of Uplift Capacity of Horizontal Plate Anchor in Sand1-31.369 -22.928 N.A.N.A.10.167 -23.498 -52.471462-30.728 -17.053 N.A.N.A.8.087-22.210 -57.951Kupferman463-26.392 -40.224 N.A.N.A.1.775-49.056 -73.861(1975)465-28.156 -6.784N.A.N.A.6.449-19.943 -63.643Year 201930Journal of Researches in Engineering E ( ) Volume XIx X Issue IV V ersion IH m kN/m 3 ? 0.10 0.15 18 Method 1. Meyerhof and Adams (1968) Proposed Method Exp. Results Method 1 0.05 38 0.55 -33.784 -34.122 38 1.11 -27.933 -28.090 Balla (1961) 38 1.68 -22.422 -21.964 ? ( o ) ? Note: Method 4: Clemence and Veesaert (1977)Method Method Method Method Method 2 3 4 5 6 N.A. N.A. 12.199 -25.135 -44.932 -32.584 -25.618 11.982 19.563 N.A. -21.768 -15.597 12.123 -5.516 -45.990 5. Murray and Geddes (1987) (1971)GlobalD = 0.09 m0.20382.22 -22.914-26.463-24.559 -16.68611.049-4.501-52.4090.24382.77 -21.273 -21.873 -31.727 -13.855 10.737 -1.782-43.0000.30383.33 -6.121-6.774-4.924 -0.52614.102 18.014 -44.652© 2019 Global Journals 2aEstimation of Uplift Capacity of Horizontal Plate Anchor in SandH?? ( o )Proposed Method Method Method Method Method MethodExp. Results?mkN/m 3Method123456Baker and0.52 17.9427-2.17411.789-2.174N.A.127.258 20.987-43.395Konder0.45 17.93426-2.01310.872-3.087N.A.131.812 20.671-33.96(1966)0.37 17.8942515.78933.48314.334N.A.157.671 42.777N.A.D=0.0756m0.45 17.924292.10416.992.104N.A.24.27225.72826.861D =0.0504m 0.37 17.92427.5-1.712.181-1.7N.A.128.329 21.5327.7620.30 17.9242654.54579.58554.226N.A.236.523 -42.105N.A.0.45 17.97421223.19143.61723.191N.A.89.78738.723N.A.D= 0.0378m 0.37 17.9742101.942-4.8541.942N.A.179.935 18.77122.330.30 17.97428-31.369-22.928N.A.N.A.10.167-23.498-52.471 2aMurray0.05441-2.5575.68217.330-8.23919.00610.511-28.977and0.08441.63 4.44417.35211.481-1.11118.64820.056-25.926Geddes0.15-443-15.681-0.928-15.268 -24.12011.002-2.462-51.857(1987)0.23444.6-16.3051.114-16.124 N.A.9.660-3.326-56.616D = 0.0508 0.25 m 0.30445-24.979-8.906-26.51N.A.7.45-13.356-59.99Year 2019446-24.952-7.945-26.328 N.A.7.098-13.441-58.963( ) Volume XIx X Issue IV V ersion I EExp. Results OvesenH m 0.04 0.02? kN/m 3? ( o ) 45? 1Proposed Method Method Method Method 1 2 3 -26.205 -19.706 -13.166 -31.845Method Method Method 4 5 6 11.943 -17.044 -6.709Global Journal of Researches in Engineering452-25.600-13.120-28.600 -34.3109.587-15.290-53.850(1987)0.06-453-34.526-18.868-34.668 -41.6796.600-23.463-62.579D = 0.02 m 0.08454-35.000-19.787-34.533 -46.0175.422-26.107-65.1670.10455-19.919-6.392-30.103 N.A.7.234-15.268-61.189 2aEstimation of Uplift Capacity of Horizontal Plate Anchor in SandExp.H?? ( o )Proposed Method Method Method Method Method Method?ResultsmkN/m 3Method1234560.08430.84 -16.715-11.816N.A.N.A.15.706-5.187-29.683170.19Ilamparuthi431.9-8.5551.262-2.244-17.363 14.6456.648-37.1670.28et al.432.87 -9.4653.621-2.305-14.551 13.0346.963-45.3500.39(2002)433.91 -8.9045.269-5.269-19.916 12.0066.928-47.313D = 0.1 m0.4717434.75 -5.9429.903-0.970N.A.12.18010.493-44.3820.59435.97 -5.89211.223-6.902N.A.11.62010.513-48.0920.69436.91 -11.6425.108-10.711 N.A.9.9935.962-51.716411-28.188-26.532 -30.649 -29.083 11.570-17.539 -46.085Sutherland413-30.203-26.212 -28.299 -32.602 7.563-16.846 -58.629et al.-414-16.350-11.560 -15.750 -20.755 10.035-0.820-51.700(1982)417-37.728-33.358 -38.603 N.A.3.932-26.137 -65.495418-40.324-35.991 -41.287 N.A.3.266-29.254 -67.332 2bEstimation of Uplift Capacity of Horizontal Plate Anchor in SandField Test H?Proposed Method Method Method Method Method Method? ( o ) ?ResultsmkN/m 3Method123456Sutherland 4.57421.91-15.61-3.56-9.744-22.30128.29 -0.74-41.37et al.5.18422.17-21.05-8.174-26.25-21.05110.48 -6.30-52.0610.37(1982)6.4422.6725.0923.692 -0.636.347183.62 23.69-35.37D = 2.39m 7.0422.943.78665.379 44.4935.675 254.72 66.39-14.071.68381.38-17.33-6.72-16.49-12.89143.97 0.148-32.0041.93421.59-35.34-27.04-34.84-37.6580.88-24.07-41.207Tucker1.9141.5 1.57-20.82-10.49-18.92-21.30123.05 -6.518-40.320(1987)1.7341.5 1.42-33.03-24.95-28.55-34.3891.77-21.18-33.878D = 1.2210.37m2.1441.5 1.7621.238.3333.405 19.06238.11 43.618 -35.7591.9541.5 1.6-28.21-18.74-26.94-30.32101.41 -15.19-28.8322.1941.5 1.8-18.15-6.19-3.44-19.39124.62 -2.7785 -37.097Method 1: Meyerhof and Adams (1968)Method 2: Saeedy (1987)Method 3: Balla (1961)Method 4: Clemence and Veesaert (1977)Method 5: Murray and Geddes (1987) 3a0-5961224805-1061232108110-151843165015-209866310020-259535111025-30857205630-35738500335-40221201440-45122103845-500001018> 50121019119Method 1: Meyerhof and Adams (1968)Method 2: Saeedy (1987)Method 3: Balla (1961)Method 5: Murray and Geddes (1987)Method 4: Clemence and Veesaert (1977)Method 6: Vesic (1971) 3bEstimation of Uplift Capacity of Horizontal Plate Anchor in Sand25-30424435203447730-354947432534471035-405149442734481440-455251462834512245-50Year 2019> 5052 5351 5346 4729 2934 5352 5330 4934Method 1: Meyerhof and Adams (1968)Method 5: Murray and Geddes (1987)E ( ) Volume XIx X Issue IV V ersion IMethod 3: Balla (1961) Method 2: Saeedy (1987) Method 4: Clemence and Veesaert (1977) sabsolute deviations in the range of 2% to 45%. The solution proposed by Meyerhof and Adams (1968)Method 6: Vesic (1971)Journal of Researches in Engineering GlobalAbsolute deviation (%) Proposed Method Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 5 Method 6 0-5 9 6 12 2 4 8 Note: 0 5-10 15 14 16 1 18 15 410-1516261973021115-20253425133331120-253439281834421© 2019 Global Journals © 2019 Global Journals ## List of symbols The following symbols are used in this paper. * The uplift capacity of shallow foundations JIAdams DCHayes Ontario Hydro Research Quarterly 19 1 1967 * Pullout load capacity of a circular earth anchor buried in sand WHBaker RLKonder Highway Res. Rec 108 1966 * The resistance to breaking out of mushroom foundations for pylons ABalla Proc., 5 th Intl. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division 5 th Intl. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering DivisionParis, France 1961 1 * Uplift capacity of anchors in layered sand using finiteelement limit analysis: formulation and results PBhattacharya JKumar DOI: 10. 1061/(ASCE)GM.1943- 5622.0000560 Int. J. Geomech 4015078 2016 * Seismic passive/active thrust on retaining wallpoint of application DMDewaikar SAHalkude 10.3208/sandf.42.9 Soils and Foundations 42 1 2002a * Computation of Bearing Capacity Factor N ? -Terzaghi's Mechanism DMDewaikar BGMohapatro 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2003)3:1 International J. of Geomechanics (ASCE) 3 1 2003 * Computation of uplift capacity of pile anchors in cohesionless soil VBDeshmukh DMDewaikar DeepankarChoudhury 10.1007/s11440-010-0111-6 Acta Geotechnica 5 2 2010 * VDeshmukh DDewaikar DeepankarChoudhury 10.3328/IJGE.2010.04.01.79-87 Analysis of rectangular and Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 04 2010 * Uplift behaviour of screw anchors in sand. I: Dry sand AMGhaly AMHanna MSHanna 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410 J. Geotech. Engrg 117 5 5 1991. 1991 ASCE * Concrete cylindrical anchors proved for 375 KW tower line WCGiffels REGraham JFMook Electrical World 159 1960 * Numerical analysis of uplift capacity of circular plate anchor in sand FuHao Dong Xu ChenRong Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 19 2014 * Experimental investigation of the uplift behavior of circular plate anchors embedded in sand KIlamparuthi EADickin KMuthukrisnaiah 10.1139/t02-005 Can. Geotech. Journal 39 2002 * Discussion on Uplift resistance of transmission tower footings by E.A. Turner HOIreland J. Power Division (ASCE) 89 1 1963 * Experimental investigation of the stability of base of anchor foundations ASKananyan 10.1007/BF01702954 Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 3 6 1966 * Die Bestimmung des Drucks an gekru¨mmtenGleitfla ¨chen, eine Aufgabeaus der Estimation of Uplift Capacity of Horizontal Plate Anchor in Sand Lehrevom Erddruck FKötter Sitzungs berichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin 1903 * Vertical uplift capacity of horizontal anchors using upper bound limit analysis and finite elements JKumar KMKouzer 10.1139/T08-005 Can. Geotech. Journal 45 5 2008 * The bearing capacity of anchor foundations LGMariupol' Skii Osnovaniya Fundamentyi Mekhanika Gruntov 3 1 1965 * The ultimate pullout capacity of anchors in frictional soils RSMerifield SWSloan 10.1139/t06-052 Can. Geotech. Journal 43 8 2006 * The ultimate uplift capacity of foundations GGMeyerhof JIAdams 10.1139/t68-024 Can. Geotech. Journal 5 1968 * The behavior of mast foundations subjected to tensile forces HMors Bautechnik 36 1959 * Uplift of anchor plates in sand EJMurray JDGeddes 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410 J. Geotech. Engrg (ASCE) 113 3 1987. 1987. 202 * NKOvesen Centrifuge tests on the uplift Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 1 1981 * Stability of circular vertical earth anchors HSSaeedy 10.1139/t87-056 Can. Geotech. Journal 24 1987 * Experimental and numerical study of uplift behavior of shallow circular anchor in two layered sand TSakai TTanaka 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:4(469 J. Geotech. Engrg. (ASCE) 133 2007 * The vertical holding capacity of marine anchor flukes subjected to static and cyclic loading SMBemben MKupferman Proc., 7 th Offshore Technology Conf 7 th Offshore Technology ConfHouston, Texas, OTC2185 1975 * Dynamic pullout resistance of anchors in sand SPClemence CJVeesaert Proc. of the International Conference on Soil-Structure Interaction of the International Conference on Soil-Structure InteractionRoorkee, India 1977 * Active thrust on bracing system of open cuts in cohesionless soil-point of application DMDewaikar SAHalkude Indian Geotechnical Journal 32 2002b square anchors in cohesionless soil" International capacity of anchors" Proc., 10 th International * Uplift capacity of embedded anchors in the Behaviour of Offshore Structures, 2, Cambridge HBSutherland TWFinlay MOFadl 1982 * Pullout resistance of buried anchor in sand KTagaya RFScott Aboshi H 10.3208/sandf1972.28.3_114 Soils and Foundations 28 1988 * Axisymmetric lower-bound limit analysis using finite elements and second-order cone programming CTang KToh KPhoon 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000669 J. Eng. Mech 140 2 2014 ASCE * Uplift capacity of drilled shafts and driven piles in granular materials" Foundations for transmission line towers KDTucker Geotechnical Special Publication J.-L. Briaud 8 1987 ASCE * Uplift resistance of transmission tower footing EZTurner J. Power Division 88 2 1962 ASCE * Breakout resistance of objects embedded in ocean bottom ASVesic J. of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division 97 9 1971 ASCE