PSI - Issue 70

Ashutosh Kumar et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 70 (2025) 175–182

181

a. H=2B, RD=30%

b. H=2B, RD=70%

c. . Dense soil (RD = 75%) over Loose soil (RD = 30%)

d. Loose soil (RD = 30%) over Dense Soil (RD = 75%)

Fig. 7 Displacement contour for single and two-layered soil configurations

5. Conclusions The present study investigates the uplift performance of the horizontal square plate anchor in two-layered soil configuration. The key findings and major conclusions are summarized as follows: 1. The results obtained from the finite element model were compared with the existing experimental data, demonstrating a good coherence between the numerical analysis and the experimental outcomes. This confirms that the numerical model can accurately captures the behaviour of anchor plate embedded in two layered soil configurations as well single-layered soil. 2. The maximum performance of an anchor plate is achieved by placing a layer of dense soil directly above the anchor plate followed by layer of loose soil. The uplift stress increases by 40.86 % from H/B =1 to 3 for the loose soil over dense soil configuration as compared to the dense soil over loose soil configuration with equal layer of thickness. 3. The uplift capacity factor for loose soil over dense soil found to be 185.19, 238.56, and 411.97 whereas 164.10, 208.74, and 348.84 for dense soil over loose soil corresponding to H/B of 1 to 3. However, the “F q ” falls within the range of values obtained for single-layered loose and dense soil at the respective embedment depths. For example, at H/B = 1, “F q ” for dense over loose soil and loose over dense soil is 164.10 and 185.19, respectively. These values lies within the range of single-layered loose soil (RD =30%) and dense soil (RD = 75%) which are 149.14 and 187.29, respectively. Similar trends were observed for uplift capacity factors at H/B = 2 and 3. 4. The ultimate uplift capacity of an anchor plate is highly dependent on the relative strengths of the two-layered soil configuration.