CSTC Essais Micropieux Limelette PDF

PROCEEDINGS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
GROUND ANCHORS
Limelette test field results
VOLUME 1
14 May 2008
Hotel Métropole – Brussels
BGGG - GBMS BBRI

Proceedings of the International Symposium
“Ground Anchors – Limelette test field results”
14 May 2008, Brussels, Belgium
Volume 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS
ORGANISATION
WORKING GROUP “GROUND ANCHORS”
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CONTRIBUTIONS
General Framework and Viewpoint with regard to Ground Anchors, Soil Nails and
Tension Piles
Prof. J. Maertens (Jan Maertens bvba & K.U. Leuven)
Ground Anchors : Overview of Types, Installation Methods and Recent Trends
Ir. F. De Cock (Geo.be)
Full Scale Load Test Program in Limelette : Overview of the Test Campaign, Set up &
General Results
Ir. N. Huybrechts & Ir. O. Tomboy, (BBRI), Prof. J. Maertens (Jan Maertens bvba &
K.U. Leuven) & Prof. A. Holeyman (UCL)
Excavation of the Anchors : Measurements and Observations
Ir. O. Tomboy & Ir. N. Huybrechts (BBRI)
Integrated Analysis of the Load Test Results & Suggestions for a Harmonised Anchor
Design and Test Methodology in Belgium in the Eurocode 7 Framework
Ir. N. Huybrechts, Ir. M. De Vos & Ir. O. Tomboy (BBRI) & J. Maertens (Jan Maertens
bvba & K.U. Leuven)
Practical Experience of TUC RAIL with Ground Anchors and Micro-Piles
Ir. W. Maekelberg, Ir. Q. Bollens, Ir. J. Verstraeten, Ir. F. Theys, E. De Clercq
(TUC RAIL) & Prof. J. Maertens (Jan Maertens & Partners bvba & K.U. Leuven)
Experience with Ground Anchors of the Federal Public Buildings Service
Ir. Ph. Debacker (Federal Public Buildings Agency)
Experience with Ground Anchors of the Flemish Ministry
Ir. I. Mariën (Ministry of Flemish Community)
Design Guidelines for Non-driven Tension Piles Underneath under Water Concrete
Slabs
Ir. A.C. Vriend, reporter C-152 & Acécon (NL)
Experience in France with Ground Anchors
Prof. J.P. Magnan (LCPC, F)
Application of Ground Anchors, Nails and Tension Piles in Europe and Current Status
of the EN 1537 – Ground Anchors
Dr.-Ing. W.R. Linder Chairman of CEN TC 288 Execution of Special Geotechnical
Works & Brückner Grundbau (DE)
Dr. Caesar Merrifield, Convener of CEN TC 288 WG 14 “Anchors” & Coffey
Geotechnics (UK)
PREFACE
Ground anchors are commonly used in Belgium in different building and civil
engineering applications (anchorage of retaining walls, submerged structures, quay
walls, stabilisation of slopes, …). Unfortunately, up to now no Belgian geotechnical
standards, which deal with such elements, exist. As a consequence, the project
specifications of different owners integrate generally, without coherence, different
design and test methodologies coming from other countries, mostly from French and
German standards.
In addition a lot of new anchoring techniques, for which the current geotechnical codes
are in general not yet adapted, appeared the last decade on the Belgian market.
Particular situations are those where not all the anchors are tested and/or pre-stressed.
Finally, within the framework of the European standardisation, which is fully
developing, the construction sector experienced a strong need for a better understanding
of the applied anchoring techniques and appropriate design methods, in particular for
the establishment of the Belgian national annex of the Eurocode 7.
All the above-mentioned aspects encouraged the Belgian Building Research Institute
(BBRI - CSTC - WTCB) to undertake the establishment of a uniform guidance for the
execution, the design and the testing of anchoring systems in Belgium. In order to
address this issue the BBRI initiated in 2004 a national research project on ground
anchors. The project is guided by an inter-professional Working Group under
supervision of the project partners K.U. Leuven (Prof. J. Maertens) and UCL (Prof. A.
Holeyman). Financial support for the research project has been obtained from the
Belgian Federal Public Service “Economy” and the Belgian Normalisation Institute.
Backbone of the research project is the extended real scale load test campaign on
approximately 50 ground anchors performed at the proof station of the BBRI in
Limelette.
During this symposium the various aspects of this extended load test campaign in
Limelette (B) will be reviewed : soil investigation, anchor installation methods, load
testing and interpretation, as well as observations related to the excavated anchors.
Suggestions for an approach to design and test ground anchors in Belgium following the
Eurocode 7 principles will be put forward.
Moreover attention will be paid to the experience with ground anchors of three main
organisations on the Belgian building market: Tuc Rail, the Federal Public Buildings
Service, and the Ministry of the Flemish community.
Finally three contributions from neighbouring countries (NL, F & DE) will deal with
developments in anchoring techniques and design approaches in their country and/or in
Europe.
It is the hope of the organizers that the results of the Limelette load test campaign and
the discussions held during this international symposium might be of value in the
development of European geotechnical standardization.
The organization committee

INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS
Research has historically been performed in Belgium by common efforts of independent
bodies and individual contractors. It is only recently that the BBRI introduced the
concept of more “global” research projects starting a few years ago with the research on
screw piles, and the development of new guidelines for the design of piled foundations
in the frame of the NAD of the EC7. In this context, the creation of the Belgian
Federation of Foundations Contractors (ABEF) has filled in a gap as corresponding
partner to the BBRI and other Federal bodies, in order to globalize the reflections and
interests of the Foundation Industry, as a whole. This can be considered as a major
achievement and a clear progress towards the past.
Until recently, as stated by Noël Huybrechts, Belgium was characterized by the absence
of codes or guidelines. This situation, which the contractors relatively easily could deal
with, was judged, with some reason, dangerous and difficult by administrations and
consulting offices. It was also difficultly compatible with the introduction of the
European codes and norms. The BBRI has launched several projects in order to
remediate this situation, inscribing its efforts in the global perspective of the Eurocodes.
ABEF naturally contributed to consolidate the Contractor’s views, adding some
entrepreneurial perspective to these efforts.
ABEF was created in 1998 by 6 founding members, gathering the biggest contractors in
the field of Deep Foundations. It has welcomed in the meantime 6 new members, and
currently represents 80 % of the Belgian Deep Foundations market. Establishing a solid
base for sound competition and reliable and safe execution of deep foundations is our
global objective. Contributing to this research is part of this global objective.
Other concrete steps over the last years are:
o Work out a specific education program for workmen of the different members
together with VDAB/FOREM structured around 3 modules corresponding to 3
levels of education.
o Develop common Working Conditions in order to improve the contractual and
technical quality of the relationship with the clients/general contractors.
o Actively participate in the different working groups and research programs
• TIS
• National Annex of the Eurocode 7 (piles)
• Research Program on Screw Piles
• Research Program on retaining walls
o Participate in the activities of the European Federation of Foundation Contractors
and other international Working Groups
• TC288: Bored piles and Slurry Walls
• Contract & Qualification Working Group of the EFFC
As President of ABEF, I am particularly pleased to welcome you all, to this seminar.
What will be presented today is the result of years of efforts, installation and testing
which the Deep Foundation Industry has contributed to both financially and
intellectually. We hope you will benefit of this investment. Enjoy your stay in
Brussels.
ir Maurice Bottiau
ABEF – President
BGGG/GBMS – Vice-President
Franki Foundations Group Belgium – Group Commercial Director
ORGANIZATION
SYMPOSIUM ORGANISING COMMITTEE
Ir. G. Breyne,
Chairman of the Technical Committee “Structural Work” of the Belgian Building
Research Institute (BBRI) & SERCK
Prof. A. Holeyman
Catholic University of Louvain (UCL)
Ir. N. Huybrechts,
Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI)
Prof. C. Bauduin
Besix & University of Brussels (VUB)
Ir. M. Bottiau
Chairman of ABEF (Belgian Member Society of EFFC) & Franki Geotechnics B
Prof. J. Maertens
Jan Maertens bvba & Catholic University of Leuven (K.U.Leuven)
Ir. G. Simon
Ministry of Equipment and Transport of the Walloon Region, Geotechnical Direction
Ir. O. Tomboy
WORKING GROUP ‘GROUND ANCHORS’
Ir. C. Bauduin (Besix & University of Brussels VUB)

E. Dupont (ABEF & FUNDEX)
M. Bottiau (ABEF & FRANKI GEOTECHNICS B)
N. Charue (TRACTEBEL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING)
B. Cloet (VOTQUENNE)
W. Cromheecke (DENYS)
F. De Cock (GEO.BE)
M. De Vos, N. Huybrechts, C. Legrand, O. Tomboy, V. Whenham (BBRI)
Ph. Debacker (Federal Public Buildings Agency)
H. Gille (BACHY)
D. Grabo (EURODRILL BELGIUM)
K. Haelterman (Ministry of the Flemish Region, MOW, Geotechnical Division)
E. Heirwegh (HEVI)
A. Holeyman (UCL – Unité Génie Civil et Environnement)
W. Hoppenbrouwers (SECO)
W. Maekelberg (TUC RAIL)
J. Maertens (KU.Leuven & JAN MAERTENS)
I. Mariën (Ministry of the Flemish Region, MOW, Steel Structural Division)
J. Market, W. Smet (SMET F&C)
M. Meersman, L. Smet, T. Smet (CVR )
M. Roovers (FONDEDILE BELGIUM)
G. Simon, Ph. Welter (Ministry of the Walloon Region, MET, Geotechnical Division)
C. Trève (CFE)
G. Wellens (FONTEC)
K. Van der Eecken, J. Wyckman (DYWIDAG-SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL)
S. Vandemeulebroecke (PLANET ENGINEERING)
T. Vanlangenhoven (OLIVIER)
J.-L. Vieslet (PROFFUND)
H. Wanzeele (FREYSSINET BELGIUM)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The BBRI staff, responsible for the research program “ground anchors”, wishes to
thank:
for the financial support of the research project on Ground Anchors:

- The direction of the Belgian Building Research Institute
- The Belgian Federal Public Service “Economy”
- The Belgian Standardization organization NBN
- The sponsors of the test program in Limelette, in particular:
ABEF (financial contribution)
BACHY (financial contribution & installation on own cost)
CVR (installation on own cost1)
DENYS (installation on own cost)
DSI (strands, Dywidrill hollow bars and hydraulic jacks)
EURODRILL (financial contribution)
ISCHEBECK (titan hollow bars)
FONDEDILE (financial contribution)
FONTEC (financial contribution)
FREYSSINET (strands and hydraulic jacks)
OLIVIER (financial contribution)
PROFFUND (financial contribution)
SMET F& C (financial contribution)
for the project elaboration:

- The project partners K.U.Leuven (Prof. J. Maertens) and UCL (Prof. A.
Holeyman) for their expertise during the research program
- The Working Group “Ground Anchors” (practical elaboration of the project)
- Mr. A. Bernard, Mr. R. Bonsangue and Mr. C. Verbeke from the Belgian
Building Research Institute (for their technical support and contributions,
and their hard and fine work during the whole project).
for the development of the inclined CPT device and the performance of the inclined
CPT:
- Ministry of Flanders, MOW, Geotechnics Division
for the organization of the Symposium “Ground Anchors – Limelette test field results”:
- The Symposium Organizing Committee
CONTRIBUTIONS
BBRI BGGG – GBMS
International Symposium 14 May 2008

“Ground Anchors”
General Framework and Viewpoint with regard

to Ground Anchors, Soil Nails and Tension Piles
Prof. Ir Jan Maertens

Jan Maertens & Partners bvba and KU Leuven
BBRI & BGGG-GBMS “Ground Anchors 14.05.2008”
1. INTRODUCTION
When starting the BBRI research program on ground anchors there was a lot of
discussion within the Working Group concerning the types of anchors to be
tested. This was mainly due to the fact that there is no clear definition and/or
classification of ground anchors. So the difference between ground anchors, soil
nails and tension piles is not always clear.
The existing European Standards for ground anchors, micropiles and soil nailing
contain a lot of valuable information. However a lot of cases exist which are not
covered by the existing execution standards and/or by Eurocode 7.
2. EUROPEAN STANDARDS EXECUTION OF SPECIAL

GEOTECHNICAL WORKS:
2.1. EN 1537 – 1999 : ground anchors.
Chapter 1 : Scope
An anchor consists of an anchor head, a free anchor length and a fixed anchor
length which is bonded to the ground by grout.
Chapter 3 : Terms, definitions and symbols:

Anchor : an installation capable of transmitting an applied tensile load to a load
bearing stratum.
Figure 1: sketch of a ground anchor – details of anchor head and head protection omitted.
Chapter 9.7. acceptance test:

Each working anchor shall be subjected to an acceptance test. The objectives ….
Comment :
According to EN 1537 – 1999 a ground anchor has an anchor head, a free anchor
length and a fixed anchor length and has to be subjected to an acceptance test.
General framework and viewpoint with regard to ground anchors, J. Maertens – 14.05.2008
soil nails and tension piles p. 3/9
2.2. EN 14199 – 2003 : Micropiles

Chapter 1 : Scope
1.2. Micropiles are structural members to transfer actions to the ground and
may contain bearing elements to transfer loads or to limit deformations. ….
Chapter 3 : Terms and definitions

3.1. Micropile:
piles which have a small diameter (smaller than 300 mm outer diameter for
bored piles and smaller than 150mm for displacement piles) and can be
installed with small rigs.
Chapter 9 : Micropile testing

9.3.2.3.3. unless otherwise specified for micropiles working in tension at least
one static load test should be performed for the first 25 micropiles and 1 for
each next 25 micropiles.
2.3. prEN 14490 : Soil nailing

Chapter 1: Scope
1.1 Soil nailing is a construction technique used to enhance / maintain the
stability of a soil mass by installation of reinforcing elements (soil nails).
Typical examples of soil nailing are given in Annex A.
Chapter 3 : Terms and definitions

3.15. soil nail:
reinforcement element installed into the ground , usually at a sub-horizontal
angle that mobilises resistance with the soil along its entire length.
Chapter 9 : Supervision, testing and monitoring

9.3.2.1. The frequency and procedures for soil nail load testing should be based
on a consideration of the consequence of failure, as defined in EN 1990 , EN
1997 and EN 1990.
9.3.2.2. Table 1 describes the principal types of soil nail load tests, their
purpose, when they are required and actions to be taken in the event of an non-
compliant test result. Annex A gives guidance on test procedures, acceptance
criteria and the equipment to be used for soil nail load tests. Table 2 suggests
the frequency of soil nail load tests based on the category of geotechnical
structure.
3. GROUND ANCHORS IN BELGIAN DAILY

PRACTICE
In Belgium the following anchor types and installation methods are used
actually:
a) Anchors with tendon elements of high strength steel (= mostly strands):

- Drilling method : double or single rod system;
- Injection:
- double rod system : under pressure;
- single rod system : under pressure or gravitary.
- Testing: almost always , cfr. comment

- temporary anchors = 1,3 x service load (SL) :
- permanent anchors = 1,5 x SL.
- Prestressing : always till 0,8 à 1,0 x SL.
Comment :
With tendon elements of high tension steel prestressing is always necessary to
limit the deformations . Testing is not always possible. In some cases it is not
possible to fully test ground anchors installed on Berlin walls with laggings of
prefabricated concrete and installed in very soft upper layers.
b) Anchors with tendon elements of low strength steel (= GEWI bars or self
drilling rods) and with a free length:
- Drilling method : double or single rod system.
- Injection :
- double rod system : under pressure
- single rod system : under pressure or gravitary
- sometimes post grouting through self drilling rods (after 1 or 2 hours).
- Testing :
- not always.
- Prestressing:
- not always.
Comment :
With tendon elements of low strength steel it is not necessary to prestress the
ground anchors when certain deformations can be allowed, f.i. for retaining
walls along streets, … .
c) Anchors with tendon elements of low strength steel and without a free length
( = mostly self drilling rods):
- Drilling method : single rod system;
- Injection : under pressure or gravitary;
- Testing : not possible
- Prestressing : not possible.
Comment :
This anchor types should be considered as tension piles (= micropiles working
in tension) or soil nails.
The major problem with ground anchors in Belgium is that actually:

- there is no clear definition of a ground anchor;
- the design is done for all types of anchors with almost the same unit shaft
resistances and with the same factors of safety.
So in most cases the execution method and the number of tests is not taken
into account in the design.
4. PROPOSAL
4.1. Classification
In order to cover all types of ground anchors which are actually installed in
Belgium the following classification is proposed :
- prestressed ground anchors;
- passive ground anchors;
- tension (micro)piles;
- soil nails.
a) Prestressed ground anchors :

- prestressed ground anchors may have a tendon element of high strength or
low strength steel.
- they always have a free length and a fixed length;
- the fixed length is installed behind the so called active wedge and in this
way that the necessary factor of safety is available for the overall stability;
- they are always tested. When testing is not possible due to an excessive
deformation of the retaining wall or the reaction system a higher value of the
safety factor has to be introduced.
- they are always prestressed by means of a hydraulic jack.
b) Passive ground anchors:

- passive ground anchors always have a tendon element of low strength steel;
- they always have a free length and a fixed length;
the fixed length is installed behind the so called active wedge and in this
way that the necessary factor of safety is available for the overall stability;
- the number of tests to be performed has to be clearly specified in the tender
documents and/or in the method statement;
- it has to be demonstrated that the displacement of the anchor head is smaller
than the allowable displacement of the retaining structure.
c) Tension Piles:
- tension (micro)piles may have a tendon element of high strength or of low
strength steel;
- they have only a fixed length;
- the length of the piles is determined in this way that the necessary factor of
safety is available for the overall stability, cfr. figure R 66-1 from EAU
Recommendations.
- the number of tests to be performed has to be clearly specified in the tender

documents and/or method statement. Tests on working piles can only be
performed for vertical piles. For inclined piles a free length of min. 2 meters has
to be provided ( = especially installed piles);
- it has to be demonstrated that the displacement of the pile head is smaller than the
allowable displacement of the retaining structure.
d) Soil nails:
- soil nails have always a tendon element of low strength steel;
- they have only a fixed length;
- soil nails are used as soil reinforcement and not as anchors.
4.2. Design
The ultimate skin friction over the fixed length is determined taking into account
the applied drilling and injection technique.
The factors of safety to be introduced are determined based on the type and
number of executed tests :
- preliminary tests
- tests on sacrificial anchors
- acceptance tests on working anchors.
4.3. Control tests

Following types of tests can be considered.
a) Prestressed ground anchors:

- preliminary tests on sacrificial anchors
- suitability tests on sacrificial anchors
- suitability tests on working anchors?? (= not foreseen in EC7)

- acceptance tests on all working anchors.
b) Passive ground anchors:

- preliminary tests on sacrificial anchors
- suitability tests on sacrificial anchors
- suitability tests on working anchors?? (= not foreseen in EC7)
- acceptance tests on working anchors.
c) Tension piles:
- preliminary tests on sacrificial piles
- suitability tests on sacrificial anchors or on selected working anchors
(provided with a free length for inclined anchors)
- acceptance tests on selected working anchors (provided with a free length
for inclined anchors).
d) Soil nails:
- preliminary tests on sacrificial nails
- suitability tests on sacrificial nails.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In Belgium there is actually a lot of confusion concerning the design of ground
anchors. This is mainly due to the fact that almost always the same design
method is used regardless the installation method and the type and the number of
tests performed.
The information given in the available European Standards is not precise enough
to allow a correct design of all the types of anchors that are actually installed.
In order to obtain a better agreement with the actual daily practice it is necessary
to extend EN 1537 with passive ground anchors and to define in EN 1997 (= EC
7) the safety factors which have to be taken in to account when acceptance tests
are not performed on all working anchors. Further on it is proposed to elaborate
a technical document dealing with the use of tension (micro)piles as anchoring
elements.
BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Ground Anchors : Overview of Types,

Installation Methods and Recent Trends
Ir. Flor De Cock

Geotechnical Expert Office Geo.be
1. INTRODUCTION
Together with the large variety in applications, ground conditions, specific
project demands, local experience, etc. a wide panoply of ground anchor types
has been developed over the last 40-50 years. The developments have meanly
been focussing on:
• improving the soil-anchor interaction, allowing for higher capacities or
shorter anchor lengths
• simplifying, improving or accelerating the installation process
• assuring faster or longer activity of the anchor.
The scope of the execution code EN 1537:1999 is limited to “anchors consisting

of an anchor head, a free anchor length and a fixed anchor length which is
bonded to the ground by grout”, whereby “ground” encompasses both soil and
rock. Our overview of anchor types and their installation methods is both
broader and narrower, since:
• also mechanical non grouted anchors and expander bodies are considered
• rock anchor types are only included as far as their components and installation
process is similar to their use in soil.
Are not considered : deadman anchors, specific rock bolts.
2. APPLICATIONS OF GROUND ANCHORS

The application of ground anchors has been dealt with in the contribution of
Prof. J. Maertens to this seminar. A demonstrative presentation is given in
Figure 1 (Samwoo). In Belgium as worldwide, the most common use of anchors
is likely to be :
• Slightly inclined temporary or permanent tiebacks for retaining walls; with
working loads most often in the order of 250-500 kN for temporary use (e.g.
for construction pits) and of 500-1000 kN for permanent anchors (e.g. for
quay-walls)
• Vertical anchoring to safeguard underground constructions from buoyancy.
Figure 1 : applications of ground anchors (Samwoo)
Ground anchors: overview of types, installation

Methods and recent trends – ir. Flor De Cock – 14.05.2008 p. 3/23
3. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

From EN 1537:1999 one maintains the following definitions and terms
(Figure 2) :
Figure 2 : sketch of a (grouted) ground anchor (EN 1537:1999)
1. Anchorage point at jack during stressing

2. Anchorage point at anchor head in service
3. Bearing plate (or anchor plate)
4. Load transfer black
5. Structural element to be anchored
6. Soil-rock
7. Borehole
8. Debonding sleeve
9. Tendon
10. Grout body (if any)
The tendon bond length Ltb (which is the bond length to be considered in the
design) corresponds to the part of the tendon that is bonded directly to the grout
and may be equal to or less than the fixed anchor length depending on location
of the end point of the debonding sleeve.
4. GROUND ANCHOR TYPES – CLASSIFICATION

The result of our search for existing ground anchor classifications that were
sufficiently covering most of the ground anchor types in general and the present-
day Belgian market in particular, was quite poor. So we tried to establish
ourselves a proposal for anchor classification. But what should be the most
adequate basis for such a classification :
• The similarity in soil-mechanical behaviour and thus also to some extend the
similarity of the appropriate design method and parameters?
• The composition (shape, components, materials, …) of the anchor?

• The installation method?

• The market position and situation?
We also considered the different aspects that may distinguish the anchors :
• The shape and configuration of the anchor : e.g. cylindrical, with bulb(s), with
anchor plate or helix, with one or several tendon elements (multi stage), …
• The nature of the tendon or anchoring body; e.g. steel strands, bars, wires,
tubes, plates, …; glass fibre, …
• The bonding material : cement-grout, mortar, resin, …
• The installation method : drilling tools and auxiliaries, one phase or 2-phase
installation, …
• The grouting method (if any)
• The terms of use : temporary or permanent, recoverable, …
• The method(s) of corrosion protection
• Prestressed or not
• The method of anchor-soil interaction.
The proposed classification is given in Figure 3, which starts from the latter
aspect, related to the fixation method of the anchor body to the ground. In
parallel, the grouting method (which is an essential influencing factor for the
anchor capacity) as well as the term of use, are incorporated in the classification
scheme.
METHOD OF FIXATION TO THE GROUND

By Friction By ground pressure Combined
Tensile type Compressive

anchor type anchor
e.g. strand anchor e.g. Duplex anchor e.g. plate anchor e.g. Grouted screw
threadbar anchor helix anchor anchor
hollow bar anchor expander body
TMD anchor
GROUTING METHODS
* primary gravity grouting

* primary pressure grouting (IGU-BE) Primary low pressure
Normally no grouting (except
* primary jetgrout pressure grouting during
for formation of the
* secondary pressure grouting screwing-in of the
expander body)
- global post-grouting (IGU-FR) anchor
- selective post-grouting (IRS-FR)
TERM OF USE
Temporary Permanent
* remaining in the ground * remaining in the ground
* recoverable
* partially removable (free length)
* entirely removable (free length and bond length)
* destructable
Figure 3 : ground anchor classification proposal
The various anchor-soil interaction systems are scheduled in Figure 4 :

• Friction anchors own their capacity from the bonding stress (shear stress) at
the tendon/grout or the grout/ground interface. In tensile type anchors, the
mobilisation of the bonding stress starts at the proximal end of the fixed

length; the distribution along the bonding length depends on the soil shear-
characteristics (shear stress as a function of displacement) and the anchor
tendon elasticity. When this shear stress has reached the maximum shear
strength and drops to a residual value, progressive debonding occurs as
anchor load increases and the bonding is more and more transferred towards
the distal end of the fixed length. To reduce this detrimental effect of the
progressive debonding, the concept of multiple anchors may be used (Barley,
1997). This system involves the installation of a multiple of unit anchors into
a single borehole. Each unit anchor has its own individual tendon, its own unit
fixed length of borehole, and is loaded with its own unit stressing jack. The
loading of all the unit anchors is carried out simultaneously by a multiple
synchronised jacks which ensures that the load in all unit anchors is always
identical.
• Compressive type anchors also use the shear stress at the grout/ground
interface, but contrary to the tensile type anchors, the total anchor load is
transferred to the very end of the anchor by a central steel tendon which is
fixed to the end cap and the outer steel compression tube. As the elasticity of
this tube and the surrounding grout mantle under compression is smaller than
the elasticity of the steel tendons in tensile type anchors, the distribution of
the bonding stress – initiated at the anchor end – is more uniform than with
tensile type anchors and so the progressive failure effect is less pronounced.
• Plate or helix anchors meanly consist of a steel tendon which transfers the
anchor load to a steel end blade. The anchor load generates compressive
ground pressures at the blade/ground interface which tends to develop a slip
surface in the ground. These anchors also may be called “end bearing”.
Tensile type anchor

Single stage
Tensile type anchor

Multi stage
Figure 4a and 4b : anchor-ground interaction for tensile type anchors

Compressive type anchor
End bearing type anchor
Figure 4c and 4d : Anchor-ground interaction for compressive and end bearing type anchors
5. GROUND ANCHOR COMPOSITIONS AND

INSTALLATION – HEADLINES
5.1. Friction anchor of the tensile type
Friction anchors of the tensile type are without any doubt the most popular
anchor type worldwide. In its most traditional and generalised way, the
installation uses flush-drilling and is done in 4 phases (Figure 5)
1. Phase 1 : DRILLING : rotational drilling of temporary outer casing and/or
inner rod, using water-flushing to destruct the ground and to evacuate the
cuttings
2. Phase 2 : PRIMARY GROUTING : after reaching the required drilling
depth, one starts to inject grout (cement-grout) instead of water, and filling
up the drill hole (or the temporary outer casing, if any) from bottom to top
with grout while extracting the drill rod
3. Phase 3 : ANCHOR BODY INSTALLATION : the anchor body, including
or not post-injection devices, is then lowered in the drill hole or in the
casing, and the casing is extracted while additional cement-grout is pumped
(under low or medium pressure) as needed
4. Phase 4 : (POSSIBLE) SECONDARY GROUTING (Post-grouting) : next
day, a secondary pressure grouting is executed using the installed post-
injection devices (grout tube, tube-à-manchettes TAM, …)

Figure 5: Typical execution phases of flush-drilled friction anchors
Complementary to the above mentioned general installation process, the

following details and remarks need to be added.
1. THE DRILLING
Instead of water, also drilling-muds or water-bentonite may be used. In e.g. rock
or hard clays, percussion or rotary-percussion drilling with air pressure is
common.
Alternatively, the very-high-pressure grouting method (Jetgrouting) (Figure 6) is

used for drilling and grouting. After drilling of the rods using water- or grout-
flush (phase 1), the rods are slowly rotated and extracted, while cement-grout is
injected under very high pressure through the injection nozzles nearby the drill
bit (phase 2). As such, a cemented grout-body with diameters of 0.3-0.4 m or
more is formed, in which the anchor body is installed (phase 3).

Figure 6: installation of friction anchors using the very high pressure technique (Jetgrouting)
Drilling tools can be :

• outer casing and inside drill rod, each with a specific recovered drill bit
• casing with slightly enlarged recovered drill bit
• drill rod with enlarged sacrificial drill bit.
The different methods, their advantages and inconveniences are further
discussed in §6.
2. THE PRIMARY GROUTING

The primary grouting may be a low pressure grouting (+/- gravity filling or < 5
bars) or a medium pressure (> 5 bars) grouting. The latter case is indicated in the
classification table and hereafter (see § ) as the “IGU-BE type” (Injection
Globale Unique – Belgium).
3. THE ANCHOR BODY : tendon, sheathing, tubes, grout

The anchor tendon for friction type anchors can be:
• (Figure 7) steel strands, typically 2 to 7 seven-wire strands, steel grade
1570/1770 or 1670/1860 N/mm², yield load of about 220 to 250 kN per strand

• (Figure 8) threadbars, diameter in the range of 30 to 60 mm, steel grades from

500/550 N/mm² up to 1080/1230 N/mm² and so with yield loads in the range
of 400 to 1.500 kN
• (occasionally) also steel wires or tubes, or glass fiber
Figure 7 : strand anchors – composition,

assembled strand tendon with post-grouting
tube
Figure 8 : threadbar anchors – composition, installed and prestressed anchors

For specific needs and demands of the client, the anchor tendon can be made
partially or entirely removable, e.g. :
• For threadbars : by using a specific coupler between free length and bond
length or at the anchor foot
• For strands : by incorporating a “weaker” breaking point between free length
and bond length (Figure 9)
Figure 9 : partially removable strand anchor
Over the free anchor length, the tendon strands or threadbar are surrounded by a
smooth sheathing, often in PVC, to allow for a friction-free extension of the free
tendon length.
Finally, over the free anchor length as well as the bond length, the tendon and its
surrounding first grout mantle, a plastic or steel sheathing for corrosion
protection may be incorporated.
4. THE SECONDARY GROUTING (Post-grouting)

The secondary grouting is started when the primary grout has achieved its initial
set, in general after 16-20 hours. It may be performed in 1 or 2 stages. The
device for this secondary grouting can consist of a small diameter perforated
grout tube (diameter 20 mm), a central plastic TAM with the strands distributed
around this tube, a steel TAM with the strands or threadbar inside.
Depending on whether the grouting is global (that means that the entire device
is pressure-grouted over its full length) or selective (when the injection valves or
manchettes are pressurised individually using a double packer injection tube),
one uses the notations :
• IGU-FR : Injection Globale Uniforme
• IRS-FR : Injection Répétitive Sélective.

5.2. Friction anchor of the tensile type – self boring system

In particular for temporary anchors with low and medium working loads (150-
500 kN), the so-called “self boring anchor” system is gaining increased use. In
Belgium as in Europe, the anchor components are mainly distributed by the
manufacturers DSI or Ischebeck.
The system takes benefit of the triple use of hollow steel threadbars provided
with a sacrificial drill bit. In fact, the bar elements are used :
• as drill rod
• as injection tube for the water-, air- or grout-flush
• and as final anchor tendon.
As such, the phases 1, 2 and 3 as mentioned above in §5.1 for the “traditional”
installation, are combined in 1 single process step. The continuous thread with
slow pitch can be cut on site to the required segments and easily extended by
screwed couplers. Sheathing assures for the free anchor length (which can be
recovered). (Figures 10a and 10b).
Figure 10a and 10 b: schematical drawing of self boring anchors (DSI and Ischebeck)
The outer diameter of the bars typically goes from about 30 mm up to 70 mm.
With steel yield strengths of about 500 to 600 N/mm², the yield load ranges
from about 200 kN up to 1200 kN. The oversized drill bit type is chosen as a
function of the ground conditions.
The main advantages of the system are :

• the high productivity

• the flexibility and simplicity to adjust and assemble the anchor length
• the ability to work with small drill rigs in confined conditions
The drilling method, the type, flow and injection pressure of the flushing
material and the penetration speed (including sometimes a moving up and down
of the bars) shall be chosen adequately in order to stabilize the bore hole and to
minimize soil disturbance and relaxation. After drilling the required anchor
length, cement grout with low W/C ratio (in the order of 0.5) is pumped through
the hollow bar and the drill bit, while the drill hammer continues rotating. It is
claimed that the effect of this grouting in combination with the rotating and
vibrating rods, is similar to a pressure grouting as in the conventional anchor
types.
Photo’s 2a to 2f : components and installation of self boring anchors

5.3. Friction anchor of the compressive type (Duplex anchor)

The duplex anchor body is composed of two parts: the compression tube and the
tie-rod (Figure 11). Thanks to the injected slurry, the compression element is
bound to the ground over an exactly defined length. The transmission of the
tensile forces at the extremity of the anchor is assured by the fact that the tie-rod
stays freely extensible along its whole length and is only fixed with a screw
connection at the very end of the compression element. In this way, the
compression element is exclusively incited into compression and the tie-rod into
tension.
For temporary duplex anchors, the tie-rod can be easily recovered by simple
unscrewing. In order to make the compression element destructible, the steel
compression tube will not be made in one piece, but of a volley of elements
joined together by point welding only. This fragmented compression tube will
perfectly resist the compression during the post-tensioning, but will easily break
under flexion and future foundation works or earthworks.
Figure 11 : composition of compressive type anchor
5.4. Ground pressure (end bearing) anchors

5.4.1 Plate anchors
This system involves the installation by ramming a temporary drill rod and a
metal plate in the ground to the required depth. A wire rope or a steel threadbar
(GEWI) is eccentrically coupled to the anchor plate. After driving to the
required depth, the tensioning of the rope or the threadbar causes the
eccentrically loaded plate to rotate and to be positioned perpendicular to the
bore and the tensile direction.
The plate surface typically ranges from about 100 cm² up to 1.000 cm²
(exceptionally 2.500 cm²), what corresponds to an equivalent diameter of about

120 mm to 350 mm. The structural strength of the anchor lies in the order of 100
kN up to 400 kN.
Photo’s 3 : plate anchors (Manta RayTM – supplier JLD International)
5.4.2 Helix anchors

Helix anchors or helical anchors consist of a steel rod, provided with one or
more steel screw blades of equal or increasing diameter. They are installed
without any use of water-flush or grouting, by screwing mechanically with a
lead-guided drill motor or occasionally with a hand-held power-drive head.
The helix diameter ranges between about 150 and 350 mm. The structural
strength of the anchor system goes from about 250 kN through 800 kN.

Photo’s 4 : helix anchors (ChanceTM – supplier Sub-Surface Technologies)
5.4.3 Expander body anchors

The expander body anchor comprises a package of folded sheet (e.g. steel
plating) which is installed in the ground by ramming or in a predrilled bore hole.
After installation, the end body is expanded by grouting with concrete or mortar
into a cylindrical or spherical anchoring body. In the Soilex system, strands or a
threadbar are inserted through the drill pipes up to the very end of the expander
body, and connected to this body by adhesion or by an end screw.
Diameters of the expanded body commonly ranges from about 400 mm through
800 mm and allows to achieve capacities of 300-800 kN in dense sands.
Photo’s 5 : Expander body anchors (Soilex)- 5a Permanent anchor – 5b Temporary anchor

6. DETAILS ON THE INSTALLATION METHODS –

BELGIAN PRACTICE
6.1. Drilling methods and tools for friction type anchors
As explained in §5.1, friction type anchors are commonly drilled using a casing.
This casing prevents the drill hole from collapse, but is also essential to allow
for a primary grouting under pressure.
The installation of the casing is possible in different ways :

- with flushing of a double system, using both outer casing and inside drill
rod
- with flushing of a single system, using only a casing and a slightly oversized
bit
- with flushing of a single system, using only a drill rod and an oversized bit
- by ramming (often dry) of a casing with a sacrificial end bit
1. Double drill system (casing+rod) (also called “double rod” “tubes/tiges”)
(Phase 1) The outer casing provided with a spherical drill bit and the drill rod
with a drill head are simultaneously inserted by rotational flush-drilling. The
diameter of the spherical drill bit is only a few mm larger than the outer
diameter casing (e.g. 140mm for a ø133mm casing). The diameter of the drill
head on the drill rod is chosen such as to allow a free movement of the rods
inside the casings.
The spoil and soil cuttings are evacuated to surface by the annular space in
between the casing and the rods. This allows to minimise the bore hole to the
diameter of the casing-bit, and so also to minimise the ground relaxation and
disturbance.
(Phase 2) After reaching final depth, the bore hole is cleaned by intensive
injection of clean water throughout the rods. Next, the same rods are used to
inject the grout, while the rods are systematically recovered. The casings – so far
– are kept in place.
(Phase 3) The anchor body is inserted in the casing, after which the casing is
extracted while additional cement-grout is pumped.
2. Single drill system with casing (also sometimes mistakenly referred to as

“single rod”
(Phase 1) In the single drill system, only the casings, provided with a spherical
recovered drill bit or with a full-surface sacrificial drill head, are inserted by
rotational flush-drilling. Both drill bit and drill head are only slightly larger than
the casing.
The soil cuttings have now to be evacuated by the outside space between casing
and ground. Generally, the required flow rate and pressure are higher than with
the double drill system. This may lead to an excessive ground transport; beside

the advantage of having as such an increased anchor diameter, the enlarged bore
hole may collapse and result in soil disturbance and subsidence.
(Phase 2) After reaching final depth, the bore hole is cleaned and filled with
grout by means of a flexible that is lowered in the casing.
(Phase 3) The further procedure is similar to the double drill system.
Compared to the double drill system, the installation procedure is easier and
faster, and therefor also more economical. However, it should not be used for
drilling underneath existing structures or in collapsible soils. The grout
consumption is likely to be higher than in the double system, but the grout
pressure is generally smaller.
3. Single drill system with drill rod
(Phase 1) This drilling method differs from the former by the use of a drill rod
with an oversized sacrificial drill head (e.g. drill head of 150mm for rods
90mm). One often uses a stabilising fluid, such as bentonite or cement-
bentonite, to prevent collapse of the bore hole. The ground spoil is evacuated by
the stabilising fluid at low pressures and low flow rate. Consequently, there is no
increased bore hole diameter, nor any risk for instability of the bore hole.
(Phase 2 and 3) After replacement of the bentonite with cement-grout (gravity

filling) and extraction of the drill rods, the anchor body with post-grouting
devices or a steel TAM is inserted.
(Phase 4) As the single rod system does not allow for a primary pressure
grouting, a post-grouting is required. One of the methods, referred to as the IRS-
method, is described hereunder.
4. Rammed casing
The casing is provided with a sacrificial end bit which is soil- and watertight.
The casing is driven by high frequency percussion drilling. At final depth, the
casing is internally cleaned with water, the drill bit is disconnected, after which
the further procedure as mentioned in point 3. is followed.
Basically, the soil is not removed but laterally displaced during the driving. This
is beneficial for the grouting effect and the anchor capacity. But because of
inconveniences, such as frequent material brake by hard driving or early driving
stop, the method has lost interest. It only remains frequently and successfully
used in hard clays and soft rocks (e.g. marl, shale, chalk) by using percussion
drilling and air-flush to evacuate the cuttings.

6.2. Installation procedure of the IGU-BE anchor

First of all we must clarify that the Belgian IGU system (IGU-BE) is different
from the IGU system as described in the French « Recommandation Tirants
d’Ancrage TA 95 ». The French IGU system is the abbreviation for : ‘Injection
Globale et Unique’ = ‘Global and Unique Injection’
The Belgian ‘IGU-BE’ system has to be explained as a Selective and Unique

Injection (Injection Sélective et Unique) because the injection along the anchor
bulb is executed stepwise as the casing is pulled back.
Description of the different phases :

1. Installation of the drilling unit and beginning of the drilling operation (Photo
5.1).
2. Installing of the first inner drilling rod into the casing. The length of the rod
and casing elements is generally 2 m (Photo 5.2).
3. Drilling of the first rod and casing (Photo 5.3).
4. Adding new casing with inside rod (Photo 5.4).
5. Continuation of the drilling operation with the double system “casing/rod”.
The cuttings are flushed through the annular space between inner tubes and
casings (Photo 5.5).
6. Washing out of the casings by moving the inner tubes up and down (Photo
5.6).
7. Filling up the casings with a cement grout (generally with a W/C factor of
0.5) from the bottom of the casing/drill hole to the top (Photo 5.7).
8. Removing of the inner rods (Photo 5.8).
9. Installation of the strand tendons or in other cases threadbars (Photo 5.9).
Stepwise grout injection over the anchor bond length and pulling back of the
casings. The usual grout pressure is between 5 and 15 bars (occasionally up
to 30 bars). The injection is stopped when ground bursting occurs or when
an injection volume of 50 to 100 l has been reached (Photo 5.10).
10. Pulling back of last casings over the free length, further filling up with
cement grout and end of the execution (Photo’s 5.11 and 12).


Photo’s 5-1 to 5-12 : installation of the IGU-BE grout anchor
6.3. Installation procedure for the IRS-FR anchor

The primary pressure grouting as explained before in the IGU-BE procedure has
some limitations : the grouting is a one-shot (Unique) only, the grouting
pressure may be limited by e.g. the presence of soft layers and no further
grouting is possible after recovering of the casings. These inconveniences do not
exist with the IRS-FR-method (Injection Répétitive Selective).
The method is applicable in combination with all 4 drilling methods prescribed

in §6.1. The key factor consists in the drilling of a stable bore, which allows the
insertion of a grouting device (TAM). As explained before, the stability can be
guaranteed by a casing or a stabilising drill fluid.
The grouting device consists of :

- Over the bond length : a (steel) grouting tube in screw-coupled segments and
closed with an end cap (Photo 6-1 and 6-2). Photo 6-3 shows details of the
grouting openings in the tube, protected by a rubber manchet (generally 1 per
m) and steel conical rings
- Over the free length : a PVC-tube in glue-connected segments, connected to
the grouting tube by a purpose made coupler. (Photo 6-4))

Photo’s 6-1 to 6-4 : Steel TAM for post-grouting in IRS-FR anchor type
The whole is inserted in the bore hole, filled with fresh cement grout. The
casings (if any) are extracted. One allows now for the grout to set, what
generally takes about 12 hours. After that, the post-grouting operation can start.
Therefore, a single packer (in the case of a global post-grouting – IGU-FR) or a
double packer (in the case of the IRS-FR) is used. Photo’s 6-5 and 6-6 show the
packer devices in un-inflated and inflated situation.
The un-inflated double packer is inserted in the grouting tube and positioned in
front of a manchette. The 2 rubber packers are pneumatically inflated by means
and cement-grout is pumped in the closed space in between both packers; this
fresh grout escapes through the manchette openings, breaks the initial grout
mantle and permeates in the surrounding ground. This operation is repeated at
every single manchette.
Photo’s 6-5 and 6-6 : packer for post-grouting in IRS-FR anchor type

6.4. Des-activation of anchors

6.4.1. Bar anchors
When the post tensioning is limited to low forces, the bar anchor can be des-
activated with a torque wrench. When the post tensioning is too high, the bar
anchor has first to be tensioned again to allow to unscrew the nut of the anchor.
The overlength has to be long enough (min. 0,8 m). In both cases the nut must
be greased and protected sufficiently to avoid corrosion and to allow the
unscrewing operation. When the above procedures are not working, the bars can
be cut with a cutting torch. Attention has to be paid for security reasons.
Nobody may stand in front of the anchor head.
6.4.2. Strand anchors

The anchor has to be post tensioned again to allow removing the anchor wedges
from the anchor plate. Again the anchor head and the over length of the strands
(min. 0,8 m) had to be protected sufficiently to avoid corrosion and damaging of
the strands and wedges. When the above procedure is not working, the strands
can be cut with a cutting torch taking the same security measures as mentioned
before.
6.4.3. Filling up and sealing of the anchor reservations

The part of the anchor into the retaining structure has to be removed with a
cutting torch before filling up and sealing of the anchor reservations. Corrosion
of the anchor extremities can cause water leakages through the retaining
structure.
7. REFERENCES
Barley, A.D. The single bore multiple anchor system. ICE seminar. London
1997.
EN 1537:1999 Execution of special geotechnical work – Ground anchors. CEN
Samwoo. Company website www.swanchor.com.

BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Full Scale Load Test Program in Limelette:

Overview of the Test Campaign, Set up &
General Results
Ir. Noel Huybrechts & Ir. Olivier Tomboy

Geotechnical & Structural Division
Prof. Ir. Jan Maertens

Jan Maertens bvba & Catholic University of Leuven (KUL)
Prof. Dr. Ir. Alain Holeyman

Catholic University of Louvain (UCL)
1. INTRODUCTION
The Belgian Building Research institute (BBRI) initiated in 2004 a research
program on ground anchors” (BBRI 2004-2008). This research program is
subsidized by the Belgian Federal Public Service ‘Economy’ and the Belgian
standardization institute NBN.
The main objective of the project is the establishment of a uniform guidance for
the execution, the design and the testing of anchoring systems in Belgium. Such
guidance should be complementary to the content of European standards
addressing anchors.
The research program was elaborated under supervision of the project partners
K.U.Leuven (prof. J. Maertens) and UCL (prof. A. Holeyman) and in
collaboration with the inter-professional BBRI Working Group “Ground
anchors”, composed of all relevant parties, the anchorage contractors in
particular.
Within the framework of the project a major real scale load test campaign has
been organized on the Limelette test field.
At this occasion, different types of ground anchors were installed in different
soil layers encountered in Limelette (quaternary loam, heterogeneous clayey
sand and tertiary Bruxellian sand) and load tested.
This contribution gives a general overview of the test campaign, the set up and
its results. Where relevant, reference is made to the other contributions to this
symposium.
2. TEST CAMPAIGN SET UP

It was proposed by the project team to set up an extended load test campaign on
the terrains of the proof station of the BBRI in Limelette.
The site of Limelette has already been used for several real scale test campaigns
in the past and is for that reason very well documented. The most extensive soil
investigation campaign, comprising in-situ (CPT, PMT, SPT, DMT, …) and
laboratory testing was performed on the screw piles test site in 2001, at a
distance of ±150 m from the anchor test site. The paper dealing with this
extended soil investigation program (Van Alboom & Whenham, 2003) has been
added in Annex B of Volume 2 of the proceedings of this symposium.
Moreover the Limelette test field offers the following advantages:
geological layers that are frequently encountered in Belgium occur, e.g.
Quaternary loam and Tertiary Ledian/Bruxellian sand,
the site offers time and space to perform comparative scientific load testing,
which is almost never possible on real foundation sites,
due to the fact that groundwater is found at large depth, it offers the
possibility to excavate and inspect foundation elements easily.
Figure 1 gives some typical CPT that have been performed on the ground anchor
test site in Limelette.
Full scale load test program Limelette – N. Huybrechts et al. – 14.05.2008 p. 3/18
Limelette - Test site ground anchors

CPT E10-E11-E34 -21
qc (MPa)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
0
-1
-2
-3
-4 Quaternary loam (silt)
-5
-6
-7
-8 Heterogeneous
-9 clayey sand
-10
-11 Bruxellian tertiary
-12 sand
-13
Relative Depth (R+xxm)
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
-22
-23
-24
-25
-26
-27
-28
-29
-30
CPT 21
CPT E34
CPT E10
CPT E11
-31
-32
-33
-34
22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Friction Ratio Rf (%)
Figure 1 : Some typical CPT results on the ground anchor site in Limelette
The following layers can be identified on Figure 1 :

R - 1.50m Æ R - 6.50 m Quaternary loam (silt)
R - 6.50 m Æ R- 9.50 m Heterogeneous clayey sand containing silex stones
(only in the upper part of this layer). This layer
appear in lenses as was only present at a limited
part of the test site
R - 9.50 m Æ … Tertiary Bruxellian sand layer; at larger depths
sand stone layers occur
All three layers were found interesting to install and test ground anchors but it
was however decided to operate in two phases.
In phase 1 a preliminary test campaign on 5 classical IGU ground anchors
(Injection Globale et Unique) was performed in 2005. The aim of these
preliminary tests was:
- to have a first estimate of the ultimate anchor capacity in the loam (silt)
layer, for which the grout body is situated at limited depth (± 4m below the
soil surface) , and to verify the total stability of the ground mass above the
anchor during the tests,
- to have a first estimate of the anchor capacity in the dense Bruxellian sand
layer,
- to evaluate the feasibility of the instrumentation principles for strand anchors
that were worked out in the laboratory;
- to evaluate the usefulness of a supplementary extended load tests campaign
on different ground anchor types at the Limelette test site.
Based on the results of the preliminary tests and the discussions in the Working
Group “Ground Anchors”, phase 2 of the test program (extended test campaign)
was established: 49 more anchors of the following anchor types, significant for
the techniques applied on the Belgian market, were installed and load tested (44)
in 2006:
- strand anchors for which the drilling is performed with casing and inner
tubes (IGU or 2T) in Tertiary Bruxellian sand and in a heterogeneous clayey
sand layer
- strand anchors for which the drilling is performed with casing and lost
oversized point (1T) in the Tertiary Bruxellian sand layer
- strand anchors of the previous type but with provision to perform a two stage
post-injection (1T+inj) in Tertiary Bruxellian sand and in the heterogeneous
clayey sand layer
- self boring hollow bar anchors from the Dywidrill type in the Quaternary
loam layer and in Tertiary Bruxellian sand
- self boring hollow bar anchors from the Ischebeck Titan type in Tertiary
Bruxellian sand and in the heterogeneous clayey sand layer.
In Figure 2, the position of the different test anchors is given. With regard to
Figure 2 it should be remarked that:
All the cone penetration tests were performed with an electrical E1 cone. It
concerns also a series of inclined CPT. With regard to the results of these
CPT, reference is made to Volume 2 of the proceedings of this symposium.
The heterogeneous clayey sand layer (see figure 1) was only significantly
present in the zone E5-6 to E12-13.
Reference is made to phase 3 of the test campaign : it concerns 8 more ground

anchors: 5 self boring hollow bar anchors performed in sand with intensive
percussive drilling and 3 anchors of the IRS type (Injection Répititive et
Sélective) installed in the loam (silt) layer. These anchors were recently
installed (March and April 2008) and will be load tested in May/June 2008. The
results of the supplementary tests in phase 3 are not reported in the proceedings
of this symposium. A supplementary Addendum dealing with the phase 3 load
tests will be published later.
VE15
VE14
E15 E16
E14 E17
VE13 E18
E19
E37 E20
E13 E21
E36 E22
E12
VE12
E23
E16-17
E11
E15
VE11 E35
E1
-1
4- 1 E24
E17-18
6
E18-19
E1
0
5
3
E19-2
-1
-2 1
E1
E10
4
VE10
2-
E2 0
2
1-2
E25
13
E1
E34 1-
3
E2
-2
12
2
E1
E2
0-1 24
E9
1 3- E26
VE9 E2
25
E9 - 4-
10 E2
6 is E27
E2
5-2 -27b
VE8
E8 E33 E8-9 E26
-27
E26 8 bis
E27-2 E28
E7-8 8
E7 E27-2
VE7
E28-29 bis
E6-7 E28-29 E29
E32
E6 E29-30
VE6 E5-6 E30
E30-3
1
E5 E4-5
E31
4
E3-
VE5
-3
E2
E4
VE4
E3
VE3
L3 L2 L1
E2
LCM2 LCM1
VE2
E1
VE1
L4
SCM3 SCM1
L0
SCM2
S1
VE17 S2
8
9 10
VE16 7 VE18
VERTICAL CPTE
6
INCLINED CPTE
DIRECTION OF INCLINED CPTE

5
INCLINED ANCHORS (PHASE 1)
INCLINED ANCHORS (PHASE 2)

4
VERTICAL ANCHOR (PHASE 2)
3 INCLINED ANCHORS (PHASE 3)

VERTICAL ANCHOR (PHASE 3)
2
Figure 2 : Ground anchor test site Limelette : position of the ground anchors phase 1 (2005);
Phase 2 (2006-2007); Phase 3 (2008) and position of the inclined and vertical CPTE
With the extensive load test program on anchors in Limelette it has been
envisaged to obtain more information with regard to the several aspects and
parameters that are summarised below:
- Ultimate anchor capacity of the different anchorage systems in loam (silt),

heterogeneous clayey sand and tertiary Bruxellian sand.
- Influence of the installation method on the anchor capacity.
- Influence of the inclination on the anchor capacity.
- Influence of the drill diameter on the anchor capacity.
- Friction losses in the free length (Lfree) of the anchor, and in particular the
effectiveness of the free length (Lfree) of self boring hollow bar anchors.
- A comparison of the (French) maintained load test procedure TM3 with the
(German) cyclic test procedure TM1 (see EN1537 and Pr EN ISO 22477-5).
- The (non-) lineair increase of anchor capacity with Lfixed, and the way the
friction resistance is mobilised over Lfixed
- Performance of the double corrosion protection system(s).
- The influence of the absence of spacers between the strands.
- Relation between anchor dimensions, installation methodology, and anchor
capacity.
3. ANCHOR INSTALLATION
Different types of ground anchors, significant for the systems applied on the
Belgian market, were installed on the Limelette test site. The different systems
are briefly illustrated in the Figures 3 to 5. For a detailed report of the
installation, and the observations and monitoring data during installation,
reference is made to Volume 2 of the proceedings of this symposium.
For a more general overview of ground anchors types, reference is made to the
contribution of F. De Cock (2008) to this volume.
Figure 3 : Installation of IGU anchors – drilling with casing – water flushing via inner tubes –
stepwise grout injection procedure of Lfixed
Figure 4 : Installation of 1T anchors – drilling with casing only at its end provided with an
oversized lost point – flushing with water
Figure 5 : Installation of SA anchors – drilling with hollow bar at its end provided with an
oversized drill bit – flushing with water- cement mix
With regard to the anchor installation in Limelette, it should however be

remarked that:
The technique called IGU (Injection Globale et Unique) as applied in
Belgium differs from the IGU technique in France, where a global injection
is performed starting from a tube à manchettes (TAM), cfr. AFNOR (1992)
and De Cock (2008).
Some of the IGU anchors have on purpose been gravity filled with grout;
these anchors are symbolized with 2T-grav.
For the IGU and 1T anchors in Limelette the tendon existed out of strands of
pre-stressed steel. Almost all these tendons have been instrumented with
strain gauges (cfr. Volume 2).
Some of the 1T anchors were executed with reduced dimensions of the
casing and a lost oversized point; these anchors are symbolized with 1T-
∅red. Some other 1T anchors were provided with a 2-stage post-grouting
system and are symbolized with 1T+inj.
For the SA anchors, different drill bit diameters have been applied. In order
to realize a free length, plastic tubing was provided between the coupling
sleeves.
For the SA anchors, two variants have been executed: one variant without
post-grouting (SA-xx-Dy) and the other variant with post grouting (SA-xx-
Is). As these anchors were installed with limited (SA-xx-Dy) or no (SA-xx-
Is) percussion during drilling, it has recently been decided to install in
Limelette some supplementary SA anchors with intensive percussive drilling
(phase 3).
The SA anchors were rinsed after installation. In this way it was possible to
install a retrievable extensometer system, developed by BBRI, in the hollow
bars upon testing.
According to the Belgian practice for temporary anchors, the tendons were
not provided with centralizers. Some of the strand anchors were even on
purpose installed without spacers between the strands.
As mentioned before, recently three supplementary IRS anchors have been
installed in the loam (silt) layer (phase 3). Via this installation technique the
tendons have been fixed to ground by means of 2 post injection stages via a
TAM (tube à manchettes)
4. ANCHOR LOAD TESTS

The 5 preliminary anchors of phase 1 have been installed on 30 and 31 May
2005, and load tested between June 27th and July 5th 2005.
The 44 anchors of phase 2 have been installed between 3 May and 2 June 2006,
and the load tests have been performed in the period between June 27th and
December 19th 2006.
Two test methods were applied, it concerns
- a maintained load test procedure (Test Method 3 or TM3)
- a cyclic test procedure (Test Method 1 or TM1)
The applied test procedures have been based on the requirements in the
informative annex of EN 1537:1999 – “Execution of special geotechnical works
– Ground anchors” and on the specifications of the anchor test standard PrEN
ISO 22477-5.
Both procedures are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7.
Load procedure : TM3
110
100
90
80
70
load [% Pp]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Time [min]
Load level
[% Pp]
# step Datum Step Step Step Step Step Step Step Step
load 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
% Pp 10 20 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Period of
observation 0 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
[min](*)
(*)
Reduced period of 30 to 45 min has been generally applied for Steps 1 & 2
Figure 6 : General test scheme Test Method 3 of the prEN ISO 22477-5: MLT-procedure
Load procedure : TM1
110
100
90
80
70
load [% Pp]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Time [min]
Load level Minimum period of

observation for
[% Pp] adopted TM1
[min]
Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1
20 40 50 60 70 80 90 1
20 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 15 (60 or 180)(*)
20 40 50 60 70 80 90 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1
(*)
Cycle 8 -Extended period of observation for creep-displacement monitoring at Pp (60 min in non-
cohesive soil; 180 min in cohesive soil)
Figure 7 : General test scheme Test Method 1 based on prEN ISO 22477-5: cyclic procedure
For the maintained load test procedure TM3 it was the aim to obtain anchor
failure in ± 8 load steps, starting from a datum load Pa = Min[50kN;10%Pp],
with Pp the maximum estimated test load.
In reality anchor failures have been obtained after 5 to 15 load steps. This
corresponds with 70 to 150 % of the estimated maximum load.
In general the first two load steps have been reduced to 30 or 45 minutes
For the cyclic load tests, some slight changes have been integrated in the test
procedures TM1 of the PrEN ISO 22477-5 (6 cycles until maximum load). The
magnitude of the load step ΔQ was determined, in order to obtain anchor failure
after ±8 cycles. The duration of the load steps has been based on the evaluation
of the creep (α). Hereby the load was maintained until α was constant.
For the cyclic tested anchors in Limelette, anchor failure was in general obtained
after 7 to 9 cycles.
Two tests have on purpose been performed with a very low number of cycles (5)
and a very high number of cycles (14), in order to evaluate the possible effect of
the number of cycles on the ultimate anchor load.
Figure 8 gives some illustrations from the load test set up for the inclined and
the vertical anchors.
Figure 8 : Illustration of the anchor load test setup
The load was applied by means of hollow hydraulic jacks and transmitted to the
reaction wall (inclined anchors) or bearing plates on the ground surface (vertical
anchors). The force was regulated by means of a high precision PLC-controlled
700 bar hydraulic central of the BBRI. In this way it is possible to ensure a
continue regulation of the applied load in a very accurate way (±0.1% of the
maximum jack capacity).
Measurements of the hydraulic jack pressure (digital manometer on hydraulic
central), the applied force (dynamometer), the anchor head displacement
(displacement transducers), and the deformation measurements of the tendon
(strain gauges or extensometer) were automatically and continuously recorded
(each 10 seconds). The displacement of the reference system was regularly
controlled by means of optical measurements.
The results of the load test on each individual anchor is reported in Volume 2 of
the proceedings of this symposium. Figures 9 to 16 illustrate the reported test
results on one anchor.
With regard to the execution of the tests it should be remarked that:

Only with load cells with a sufficient maximum load capacity with regard to
the maximum test load and with a height of at least 2 times the load cell
diameter, reliable load measurements were obtained for inclined anchor
testing. For some inclined anchors, flat load cells were used, resulting in
unstable measurements. The load Pcorrelation expressed in the figures below, is
based on a correlation analysis between the load cell measurements Pload cell
and the hydraulic pressure readings, and represents in our opinon the most
reliable assessment of the applied load.
Most of the anchors failed at the grout-ground interface. However for some
anchors, when loaded up to the maximum test load Pmax, determined by the
steel limit, geomechanical failure did not yet occur. Some of those anchors
were submitted to a cyclic loading between datum load Pa and Pmax. In the
most cases a limited number of cycles was needed to obtain geomechanical
failure of these anchors. In one case mechanical rupture of some steel wires
in the strands occurred under an applied load of 80% of the characteristic
load capacity of the tendon.
With regard to the creep curve : the creep values α have for each load step
been deduced from the anchor head displacement measurements (s) with
time on a logarithmic scale (see Figure 15) and in general according to the
definitions in prEN ISO 22477-5. It has been found that it is not always
evident to obtain a nice and smooth creep curve, even for load tests applied
under ‘laboratory’ conditions as it was the case in Limelette. The creep
values α are very sensible to various factors, the precision with which the
applied load can be kept constant on first instance. To anticipate on this, it is
necessary to perform continuous measurements of load, hydraulic pressure
and anchor head displacement in order to detect, explain and possibly correct
irregularities in the creep curve. Finally it should be remarked that for the
cyclic test method TM 1 in general creep curves of better quality were
obtained.
Figure 9 : Identification table of anchor E13-14
Limelette - Test site ground anchors
qc (MPa)
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
0
-1
-2
CPT E36
CPT E14
CPT E13
-3 Ext 5
-4 Ext 6
-5
-6
Ext 1
-7
-8
Ext 2
-9 Ext 4
Ext 12
-10
Ext 11
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Figure 10 : Position of anchor E13-14 with regard to nearby CPT, position of instrumentation
BBRI Research 'Ground Anchors' - Site Limelette

Anchor E13-14 (SA - sand)
1600 160
P_load cell (kN)
1400 P_correlation (kN) 140
Anchor head displacement s (mm)

Pressure (bar)
Load P (kN) - Pressure (bar)
1200 s (mm) 120
1000 100
800 80
600 60
400 40
200 20
0 0
0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00
Time (hours:minutes)
Figure 11 : Time data (each 10 sec.) of Pload cell, hydraulic pressure, and the anchor head
displacement s(mm)
BBRI Research 'Ground Anchors' - Site Limelette

Anchor E13-14 (SA - sand)
3000
EXT 11
Deformation measurements Lfixed (µstrain)
2700
EXT 12
2400 EXT 4
EXT 2
2100
EXT 1
1800 EXT 6
EXT 5
1500
Theor.
1200
900
600
300
0
0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00
Time (hours:minutes)
Figure 12 : Time data (each 10 sec.) of the tendon deformation measurements ε
BBRI Research 'Ground Anchors' - Site Limelette: Anchor E13-14 (SA-sand)
Load Pcorrelation (kN)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0
20
40
(a)
60 (b)
(6')
80
100
120 (a) sel;Lfree,tot After 6' in step 8 (918 kN), s accelerated.

(b) sel;Lfree,tot+1/2Lfixed The anchor has been unloaded
140
Figure 13 : Pcorrelation(kN) – s (mm) curve (data each 10 seconds)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0
20
40
(a)
60 (b)
80
(6')
100
120 (a) sel;Lfree,tot After 6' in step 8 (918 kN), s accelerated.

(b) sel;Lfree,tot+1/2Lfixed The anchor has been unloaded
140
Figure 14 : Pcorrelation (kN) – s (mm) (step data)
BBRI Research Ground Anchors - Site Limelette Anchor: E13-14
Time (logarithmic scale)

1 10 100
0 step 1 : 178 kN
step 2 : 353 kN
step 3 : 469 kN
20 step 4 : 560 kN
step 5 : 650 kN
step 6 : 740 kN
step 7 : 831 kN
40
Anchor head displacement (mm)
step 8 : 918 kN
60
80
100
120
Figure 15 : log t – s diagram (time t on a logarithmic scale)
5
5' --> 60'
30' --> 60'
4
(6')
3 Pmax
α (mm)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Figure 16 : Creep curve Pcorrelated - α, α values deduced from log t – s diagram
5. CONCLUSIONS
This contribution has given a general overview of the set up of a real scale load
test campaign on different ground anchor types in Limelette. It concerns phase
1 (5 preliminary test anchors) and phase 2 (extended test campaign on 44
anchors) in particular. It has been shown that an overall quality control for the
project planning, the anchor installation, and the load testing itself has been
assured in order to obtain test results of high quality. For more details reference
is made to Volume 2 of the proceedings of this symposium.
Furthermore 29 of the tested anchors have been excavated. A summary of the

observations and measurements of the real anchor dimensions is given in the
contribution of Tomboy et al. (2008) in this Volume. Volume 2 contains all
detailed measurements.
The interpretation of the test results, taking into account a.o. the observations on
the excavated anchors, is addressed in the contribution of Huybrechts et al
(2008) to this symposium.
Finally, a 3rd phase of the test campaign in Limelette has been activated. 8 more
ground anchors have recently been installed (March and April 2008) and will be
load tested in May/June 2008. It concerns 5 self boring hollow bar anchors
performed in sand with intensive percussive drilling and 3 anchors of the IRS
type installed in the loam (silt) layer.
A supplementary Addendum to these Volumes, dealing with the phase 3 load
tests, will be published later.
6. REFERENCES
AFNOR 1992, Fondations profondes pour le bâtiment, NFP 11-212, DTU 13.2
CEN, 1999. EN1537 - Execution of special geotechnical works – Ground

anchors
CEN, 2004. Pr EN ISO 22477-5 – Geotechnical investigation and testing –

Testing of geotechnical structures – Part 5: Testing of anchorages
De Cock, F. 2008. Ground Anchors : overview of types, installation methods

and recent trends, Proceedings of the international symposium on ground
anchors, May 14th 2008, Brussels
Huybrechts, N., De Vos, M., Tomboy, O. & Maertens, J. 2008. Integrated

analysis of the anchor load test results in Limelette and suggestions for a
harmonized anchor design and test methodology in Belgium in a EC7
framework, Proceedings of the international symposium on ground anchors,
May 14th 2008, Brussels
Ministère de l’Equipement, du Logement, et des Transports, 1993. Fascicule

62-V, Règles techniques de conception et de calcul des fondations des ouvrages
de génie civil, cahier des clauses techniques générales applicables aux marchés
publics se travaux (France)
Tomboy, O. & Huybrechts, N. 2008. Excavation of the ground Anchors:

measurements and observations, Proceedings of the international symposium on
ground anchors, May 14th 2008, Brussels
Van Alboom, G. & Whenham, V. 2003. Soil investigation campaign at

Limelette (Belgium):Results, Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on screw piles,
PrEN ISO 22477-5, Geotechnical investigation and testing – Testing of

geotechnical structures – Part 5: Testing of anchorages
EN1537, Execution of special geotechnical works – Ground anchors
BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Excavation of the Anchors

Measurements and Observations
Ir. Olivier Tomboy & Ir. Noel Huybrechts

1. INTRODUCTION
Within the framework of the BBRI Research program on ground anchors and
more specifically at the location of the extended test campaign in Limelette it
was decided to excavate a number of the tested anchors. The main reason for
this decision was:
- to measure the real dimensions and shape of the different anchor types,
- to determine the real position (inclination) of the anchors,
- to observe the effects of post-grouting operations on the shape and the
dimension of the anchor,
- to look at the surface roughness,
- to observe fissuring patterns.
All this information has been analysed in detail and an overview is given in this
contribution. For more details about the results of the investigation, reference is
made to Volume 2 of the proceedings of this symposium.
The further objective of the excavation is to link this detailed information with:
- the anchor installation procedures and the observed installation parameters,
- the nominal values of anchor material and/or drill tools applied on the site,
- the theoretical imposed position of the anchors,
- the results of the anchor load tests.
This integrated analysis is summarized in the contribution of Huybrechts et al.
(2008a) to this volume,
2. DATA COLLECTED ON THE LIMELETTE SITE

2.1. Selected anchors on the Limelette site
As it was practically and budgetary not possible to excavate all the tested
anchors (±50), a zone containing at least one anchor representative for each
installation technique applied on the Limelette site has been selected. This zone
is illustrated in Figure 1, and contains 13 vertical and 16 inclined anchors.
Details about the excavated anchor (types and nominal dimensions) are given in
the Table 1. The symbols used to indicate the different anchor types as well as
details about the different installation procedures are given in Huybrechts et al.
(2008b). With regard to the nominal dimensions, it should be mentioned that
they correspond with the dimensions of the boring tools (casing diameter, drill
bit diameter, and oversized lost point diameter)
Excavation of the anchors – O. Tomboy & N. Huybrechts – 14.05.2008 p. 3/26

VE15
VE14
E15 E16
E14 E17
E18
VE13 E19
E37 E20
E13 E21
E36 E22
E12
VE12 E23
E16-17
E11
E 15
E35
E1
VE11
-16
E24
4- 1
E17-18
E18-19
E1
0
5
3-
E19-2
-2 1
14
E1
E10
2
E2 0
VE10
-1
1-2
E1 E25
3
E34 1-
E2
12
E1
E9 0-1 E26
VE9 1
25
E9- 4-
10 E2
6 E27
E8 E33 25-2
VE8 E 8- E
9
-27
E26 E28
E7-8 8
E7 E27-2
VE7
E6-7 E28-29 E29
E32
E6 E29-30
E5-6 E30
VE6
E30-3
1
E5 E4-5
E31
VE5 4
E3-
-3
E2
E4
VE4
E3
VE3
L3 L2 L1
E2
LCM2 LCM1
VE2
E1
VE1
L4
SCM3 SCM1
L0
SCM2
CPTE
S1
VERTICAL ANCHOR
S2
Figure 1: Selected zone for the excavation
Table 1: Excavated anchors: anchor type, nominal dimensions

INCLINED ANCHORS VERTICAL ANCHORS
Anchor n° Anchor type ∅nom [mm] Anchor n° Anchor type ∅nom [mm]
E02-03 IGU 140 VE3 2T-grav. 140
E03-04 SA-175-Is 175 VE4 IGU 140
E04-05 IGU 140 VE5 1T 180
E05-06 IGU 140 VE6 SA-150-Dy 150
E06-07 SA-175-Is 175 VE7 SA-150-Is 150
E07-08 IGU 140 VE8 1T 180
E08-09 SA-130-Is 130 VE9 SA-150-Dy 150
E09-10 IGU 140 VE10 2T-grav. 140
E10-11 1T + inj. 180 VE11 IGU 140
E11-12 1T + inj. 180 VE12 IGU 140
E12-13 IGU 140 VE13 IGU 140
E13-14 SA-130-Is 130 VE14 1T + inj. 180
E14-15 1T ∅red. 150 VE15 1T + inj. 180
E15-16 IGU 140
E16-17 IGU 140
E17-18 1T 180

2.2. Execution of the excavation

The excavation was realised in the period between 4 and 19 June 2007. A total
soil volume of about 10 000m³ has been extracted and stored at short distance.
Figure 2 shows the finalised excavation.
Figure 2: Finalised excavation test site ground anchors Limelette
Particular remarks to be made with regard to the excavation works are the
following:
- the excavation is realised with a crane of CAT 330C type (Figure 3),
- permanent standby of BBRI staff was provided in order to guide the crane
operator, and to avoid damage of the ground anchors (Figure 3),
- the soil in the direct neighbourhood of the anchors was manually removed,
- observations detected during the excavation works were noted by the site
staff.
Due to the limited bending stiffness of the vertical anchors and due to the effect
of load testing on the anchor grout, a lot of material in the free length of the
vertical anchors was lost during the excavation works. In order to limit the loss
of information with regard to Lfree of the vertical anchors, it was decided to
perform as much as possible observations and measurements during the
excavation works and to cut them off at regular levels. This implied that
excavation process was a very delicate operation.

Figure 3: Overview of the excavation works
2.3. Methodology and presentation of the results

Thanks to the permanent standby of BBRI staff during the excavation works,
observations detected have been immediately noted. Moreover, complete
description of the excavated anchors have been realised after the end of the
excavation (few days later).
Besides the observations, a systematic methodology has been adopted to analyse

each excavated anchors:
- a photographic report with a picture each 50 cm has been created;
- a description of the soil encountered around the anchor and a description of
the fissures observed have been made, including general comments;
- the dimension (diameter) of the excavated anchors has been measured. For
the inclined anchors the diameter Dmeas has been measured in one plane.
For the vertical anchors Dmeas has been deduced from perimeter
measurements. Measurements were made each 20 cm or less in case of
irregular shape;
- the real position of the inclined anchor has been measured, either with a
total station (for all the excavated anchors) or with a pressure sensor (only
for hollow bar anchors) and has been compared to the theoretical one
For each excavated anchor a detailed data fiche has been established. This data-
fiche contains all the above-mentioned information. An example is given in
Figures 4 to 6. Each data fiche is incorporated in the Annex F of the Volume 2
of the proceedings of the symposium.

BBRI Research ‘Ground Anchors’ – Site Limelette. Anchor E13-14 ( SA-130-Is Sand)
0 – 0.5 m 0.5 – 1.0 m 1.0 – 1.5 m 1.5 – 2.0 m
2.0 – 2.5 m 2.5 – 3.0 m 3.0 – 3.5 m 3.5 – 4.0 m
4.0 – 4.5 m 4.5 – 5.0 m 5.0 – 5.5 m 5.5 – 6.0 m

← L Fixed L Free →

6.0 – 6.5 m 6.5 – 7.0 m 7.0 – 7.5 m 7.5 – 8.0 m
8.0 – 8.5 m 8.5 – 9.0 m 9.0 – 9.5 m 9.5 – 10.0 m

Figure 4: Example of detailed report on excavated anchors: photographic report
Excavation of the anchors– O. Tomboy & N. Huybrechts – 14.05.2008 p. 8/26

Figure 5: Example of detailed report on excavated anchors: description of the encountered soil,
fissuring patterns and general remarks with regard to the observations

BBRI Research 'Ground anchors' Limelette - Test site ground anchors

Anchor E13-14 (Sand SA-130-Is)
qc (MPa)
14
D meas. 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
D nom -5.8
13
0
-6.3
12 -1
11 -6.8 -2
-3
10 -7.3
-4
CPT E36
CPT E14
CPT E13
9 -7.8 -5
total station
8 -8.3
-6
-7
7
-8.8 -8
6
pressure sensor CSTC
-9.3 -9
pressure sensor VLAAO
5 free-fixed -10
-9.8
Length from bottom (m)

Relative depth (R+xxm)
4
-11
-10.3 -12

3
-13
-10.8
2 -14
-11.3 -15
1
-11.8
-16
0
-17
-1 -12.3
-18
-200 -100 0 100 200
22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Equivalent radius (mm)
Figure 6: Example of detailed report on excavated anchors: measured versus nominal anchor diameter (left) - measured versus theoretical anchor
position (right)

2.4. General observation and measurements
2.4.1. Grout degradation/fissuring

In general, most of the anchors were visually undamaged just after excavation.
However, (sudden) cracks arised just after excavation, and progressive
degradation was observed mainly for inclined anchors with time due to a.o.
thermal effects, residual stresses, grout shrinkage due to contact with air, ….
For the vertical anchors, generalised cracks in de grout along the 2 first meters
beneath soil surface have been observed (Figure 7). The cracks can be attributed
to the static load test itself. Due to that generalised degradation little information
on anchor diameter is available close to the ground surface. Such degradation
was by far more important for the vertical self boring hollow bar anchors (SA)
for which small information is consequently available in Lfree.
For strands anchors (IGU, 1T, and 1T+inj) transversal (micro-)fissures at regular
distance (±15 à 20 cm) are remarked in several zones of Lfixed. In general the
transition zone Lfixed/Lfree is characterized by transversal and longitudinal grout
cracks, but large differences between individual anchors have been reported.
For all types of anchors with strand tendons, it has been observed that for several
anchors at the physical end of the tendon a (unreinforced) block of grout is
completely torn off.
For SA systems no fissuring is in general observed in Lfixed. This is probably due

to the fact that the hollow bars exist out of construction steel that, compared with
prestressed steel, has a considerably lower yield strength. Consequently the
hollow bar tendons are subjected to smaller steel deformation during anchor
loading. Another reason might be the presence of the thread (with small pitch)
on the outside of the hollow bar, which might lead to a micro-fissuring pattern
with very small interdistance. In the transition zone Lfixed-Lfree it appeared that
the grout was highly fragmented for the vertical SA while only some
longitudinal fissuring is noticed for the inclined SA.
Figure 7: Overview of the grout degradation of vertical anchors near the ground surface (left) –
Typical fissuring patterns in Lfixed for strand anchors (right)

2.4.2. Grout aspect

From a general point of view, the grout aspect is found to be dependent on both
the installation technique and the encountered soil:
In the tertiary sand (Lfixed) - For the IGU systems, the surface shows traces due
to the withdrawal procedure of the casing (Figure 8). A regular shape has also
been observed for the 1T and SA anchors (Figure 8).
Conversely, the 1T-∅red presented a shape by far more irregular than 1T. For the
SA finally, no effect (enlargement) due to the post-injection operation was
observed at the bottom of the anchors.
The effects of post-grouting 1T+inj can be clearly observed; a secondary grout
mantle is present around the anchor body up to 1 m beneath and above the
position of the manchettes, the grout surface is irregular and rough, and grout
vanes on the surface can be observed (Figure 8).
In the heterogeneous layer – At the position of the intermediate heterogeneous

clayey sand with gravel, ground was difficult to remove from the grout, and
gravel is mixed to the outer grout. An irregular shape is observed mainly for SA
and 1T. As observed in the sand layer, the effects of post-grouting 1T+inj can be
clearly noticed (secondary grout mantle, irregular and rough grout surface, and
grout vanes).
In the (weaker) silt layer - The erosion induced during drilling involved local
large diameters, in particular for 1T and 1T+inj. Unfortunately, little information
is available due to (a) the limited anchors’ excavated length in this layer
(inclined anchors) or (b) the high degradation of the grout in this layer (vertical
anchors)
Finally it should be mentioned that in some zones of the SA anchors’ free length
Lfree some soil inclusions have been observed (Figure 9). This is probably due to
the less intensive flushing in Lfree during drilling.
Figure 8. Grout surface for IGU system (left), SA system (centre), and 1T + inj. System (right)

Figure 9. Example of local soil inclusions in Lfree for SA
2.4.3. Grout cover

Due to the absence of centralisers, it is not surprising that the grout cover of the
strands appeared to be locally very limited. Measurements on inclined anchors
revealed that for IGU and 1T systems the strands are always positioned at the
bottom of the cross-section of the grout body. Same observations and
measurements have been made on self boring hollow bar anchors. Beneath the
tendon, the grout cover is generally inferior to 20 mm, locally even less than 10
mm (Figure 10).
For vertical anchors, the grout cover of the tendon appeared also to be locally
very limited (less than 10 mm – Figure 10).
Figure 10. Example of decentred tendons for inclined and vertical anchors
2.4.4. Anchor inclination

For all the IGU anchors and for most of the 1T (+inj) anchors the real anchor
position deviates little from the theoretical anchor position. For some 1T
anchors however, a strong local deviation of the inclination is noticed in the
heterogeneous layer (when the anchor passes through zone containing silex
stones). The SA tend to deviate more from the theoretical anchor position. In
addition some SA present a local deviation in their alignment when they enter in
the dense sand layer.
Anyway, with regard to the inclination of the anchors and the real anchor
position that has been measured, it can be concluded that all anchors satisfy
largely the limits that are put forward in the EN 1537 which specifies that

overall borehole deviation tolerance should be limited to 1/30 of the anchor

length.
2.4.5. Anchor diameter

Figures 11 to 18 give an overview of the measured versus nominal diameter for
the different types of excavated anchors. In the same figures the average value
of the ratio between Dmeas and Dnom along the fixed length Lfixed is given as well.
In general, the diameter of the IGU & 2T-grav type anchors is relatively
constant and coincides well with the nominal diameter, except in sand where
local thickenings manifest, probably due to the drilling procedure, e.g. the more
intensive rinsing (moving up & down inner tubes) before a new 2-m length
casing element is added. Those thickenings imply a Dmeas which is somewhat
higher than Dnom.
For the 1T anchors, the diameter remains relatively constant with respect to the
depth and a somewhat higher diameter (±10%) than the nominal one is observed
in the sand layer. However, the average Dmeas of the 1T-∅red anchor in sand, for
which the same drilling procedure as that one for 1T has been applied but with a
reduced casing diameter of 133 mm (instead of 152 mm) and a lost drill point
diameter of 150 mm (instead of 180 mm), is significantly higher (±40%) than
Dnom. From the measurements and observations, it can be concluded that the real
anchor diameter and the obtained anchor shape depends strongly on the flow rate
of the drill fluid and in particular the ratio between flow rate and drilling
diameter. It is obvious that during drilling those parameters determine in a
direct way the (impact) velocity of the drill fluid on the surrounding soil, and are
a determining factor for the amount of soil that is eroded.
For the 1T+inj system that was provided with two post-grouting tubes, the effect
of the post-grouting operations has clearly been observed. The secondary grout
mantel increases significantly the anchor diameter with regard to Dnom. Along
the zone of Lfixed where the manchettes were present, one can observe an
increase of the diameter with 16 % with regard to Dmeas observed for the 1T
system (in sand and in heterogeneous layer)
It is remarkably that for inclined anchors the largest effect of the post-injection
can be observed 0.5 to 1 m beneath the lowest injection point (manchette). After
investigation it has been found that the end of the post-injection tube was still
closed.
Similarly to the 1T system, the diameter of SA is found to be regular in Lfixed

and coincides in general well with the nominal diameter. For SA, no significant
increase with regard to the drill bit diameter has been observed. Based on the
argumentation here above, it can be concluded that the flow rate (and/or the
pressure) of the drill fluid, cement grout in this case, was probably too low in
order to realise an increase of the real anchor diameter with regard to Dnom.
Out of the measurements no significant difference was found between the
Dywidrill system installed with percussion (occasionally) and the Ischebeck
system installed without percussion.

IGU – 25° - SAND – Dnom = 140 mm (=casing diameter)

BBRI Research 'Ground anchors' BBRI Research 'Ground anchors' BBRI Research 'Ground anchors' BBRI Research 'Ground anchors'
Anchor E02-03 (Sand IGU-140) Anchor E04-05 (Sand IGU-140) Anchor E15-16 (Sand IGU-140) Anchor E16-17 (Sand IGU-140)
14 14 14 14
D meas. D meas. D meas. D meas.
D nom -5.8 D nom -5.8 D nom -5.8 D nom -5.8
13 13 13 13
-6.3 -6.3 -6.3 -6.3
12 12 12 12
11 -6.8 11 -6.8 11 -6.8 11 -6.8
10 -7.3 10 -7.3 10 -7.3 10 -7.3
9 -7.8 9 -7.8 9 -7.8 9 -7.8
8 -8.3 8 -8.3 8 -8.3 8 -8.3

7 7 7 7
-8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8
6 6 6 free-fixed 6
-9.3 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3
5 5 free-fixed 5 5
-9.8 -9.8 -9.8 free-fixed
-9.8


4 free-fixed 4 4 4
-10.3 -10.3 -10.3 -10.3
3 3 3 3
-10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8
2 2 2 2
-11.3 -11.3 -11.3 -11.3
1 1 1 1
0 -11.8 0 -11.8 0 -11.8 0 -11.8
-1 -12.3 -1 -12.3 -1 -12.3 -1 -12.3

-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200
Equivalent radius (mm) Equivalent radius (mm) Equivalent radius (mm) Equivalent radius (mm)
Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.07*Dnom Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.11*Dnom Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.10*Dnom Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.14*Dnom
Figure 11. Dmeas versus Dnom for the inclined IGU anchors in sand (inclination 25°: with regard to the horizontal)

IGU – 25° - HETEROGENEOUS – Dnom = 140 mm (=casing diameter)

Anchor E05-06 (Heterog. IGU-140) Anchor E07-08 (Heterog. IGU-140) Anchor E09-10 (Heterog. IGU-140) Anchor E12-13 (Heterog. IGU-140)
14 14 14 14
13 13 13 13
-6.3 -6.3 -6.3 -6.3
12 12 12 12
11 -6.8 11 -6.8 11 -6.8 11 -6.8
10 -7.3 10 -7.3 10 -7.3 10 -7.3
9 -7.8 9 -7.8 9 -7.8 9 -7.8
8 -8.3 8 -8.3 8 -8.3 8 -8.3
7 7 7 7
-8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8
6 6 6 6
-9.3 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3
5 free-fixed 5 free-fixed 5 free-fixed 5 free-fixed
-9.8 -9.8 -9.8 -9.8




4 4 4 4
-10.3 -10.3 -10.3 -10.3
3 3 3 3
-10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8
2 2 2 2
-11.3 -11.3 -11.3 -11.3
1 1 1 1
0 -11.8 0 -11.8 0 -11.8 0 -11.8
-1 -12.3 -1 -12.3 -1 -12.3 -1 -12.3

-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200
Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.11* Dnom Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.04* Dnom Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.11* Dnom Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.11* Dnom
Figure 12. Dmeas versus Dnom for the inclined IGU anchors in the heterogeneous clayey sand layer (inclination 25°: with regard to the horizontal)

IGU – Vertical – Dnom = 140 mm (=casing diameter)

Anchor VE04 (Sand IGU - 140) Anchor VE11 (Sand IGU-140) Anchor VE12 (Sand IGU-140) Anchor VE13 (Sand IGU-140)
2 2 2 2
D nom D nom D nom D nom
1 1 1 top 1 top
top
0 0 0 0
top
-1 -1 -1 -1 soil surface
soil surface soil surface
-2 -2 -2
-2
soil surface
-3
-3 -3 -3
-4
-4 -4 -4
-5
-5 -5 -5
-6
-6 -6 -6
-7
-7 -7 -7
-8 free-fixed
free-fixed -8
-8

free-fixed

-8

-9
-9 free-fixed -9 -9
-10
-10 -10 -10
-11
-11 -11 -11
-12
-12 -12 bottom -12 bottom
-13
-13 bottom -14 bottom -13 -13
-14 -15 -14 -14

-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200
Figure 13. Dmeas versus Dnom for the vertical IGU anchors, Lfixed mainly in sand

2T-grav.–Vertical - Dnom=140 mm(= casing diameter)

BBRI Research 'Ground anchors' BBRI Research 'Ground anchors'
Anchor VE03 (Sand IGU - 140) Anchor VE10 (Sand IGU-140)
2 2
D meas. D meas.
D nom D nom
1 1
top
0 0
top
-1 -1
soil surface
-2 -2
soil surface
-3 -3
-4 -4
-5 -5
-6 -6
-7 -7
-8 -8 free-fixed

-9 free-fixed -9
-10 -10
-11 -11
-12 -12 bottom
-13 bottom -13
-14 -14
-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200
Equivalent radius (mm) Equivalent radius (mm)
Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.03* Dnom Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.01* Dnom
Figure 14. Dmeas versus Dnom for the vertical 2T-grav anchors, Lfixzd mainly in sand

1T – 25° - Sand 1T-∅red – 25° - Sand 1T+inj – 25° - Heterogen. 1T+inj – 25° - Heterogen.
Dnom = 180 mm Dnom = 150 mm Dnom = 180 mm Dnom = 180 mm
Anchor E17-18 (Sand 1T-180) Anchor E14-15 (Sand 1T∅red.- Anchor E10-11 (Het. 1T+inj.-180) Anchor E11-12 (Het. 1T+inj.-180)
150)
14 -4.8 14 14 14
D nom -5.8 -5,8 -5,8
13 D nom 13 13 13 D nom
D nom
-5.3
-6.3 -6,3 -6,3
12 12 12 12
-5.8
11 11 -6.8 11 -6,8 11 -6,8
-6.3
10 10 -7.3 10 -7,3 10 -7,3
-6.8
9 9 -7.8 9 -7,8 9 -7,8
8 -7.3 8 8 8
-8.3 -8,3 -8,3
7 -7.8 7 7 7
-8.8 -8,8 -8,8
6 -8.3 6 6 6
-9.3 -9,3 -9,3
-8.8 -9.8 -9,8

-9,8

4 4 4 4
-9.3 -10.3 -10,3 -10,3
3 3 3 3
-9.8 -10.8 -10,8 -10,8
2 2 2 2
-10.3 -11.3 -11,3 -11,3
1 1 1 1
0 -10.8 0 -11.8 0 -11,8 -11,8

0
-1 -11.3 -1 -12.3 -1 -12,3 -1 -12,3

-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200
Figure 15. Dmeas versus Dnom for the inclined 1T and 1T-∅red anchors in sand and the inclined 1T+inj anchors in the heterogeneous clayey sand layer (for all
anchors : inclination equals 25° with regard to the horizontal and Dnom corresponds with the diameter of the lost drill point)

1T – vertical 1T- vertical 1T+inj – vertical 1T+inj – vertical

Anchor VE05 (Sand 1T - 180) Anchor VE08 (Sand 1T-180) Anchor VE14 (Sand 1T+inj. - 180) Anchor VE15 (Sand 1T+inj. - 180)
2 2 2 2
D meas. D meas. D meas. D meas. top
D nom D nom
1 1 1 top 1 D nom
D nom
top
0 top
0 0 0
-1 -1 -1 -1
soil surface
-2 soil surface
-2 -2 -2
-3 -3 -3 -3
-4 -4 -4 -4
-5 -5 -5 -5
-6 -6 -6 -6
-7 -7 -7 -7
-8 free-fixed -8 -8

free-fixed free-fixed -8
free-fixed
-9 -9 -9 -9
-10 -10 -10 -10
-11 -11 -11 -11
-12 bottom -12 bottom -12 bottom -12

bottom
-13 -13 -13 -13
-14 -14 -14 -14

-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200
Figure 16. Dmeas versus Dnom for the vertical 1T and 1T+inj anchors with Lfixed mainly in sand (Dnom corresponds with the diameter of the lost drill point)

SA-175-Is – 25° - Sand SA-130-Is – 25° - Sand SA-175-Is – 25° - Heterog. SA-130-Is – 25° - Heterog.
Anchor E03-04 (Sand SA-175-Is) Anchor E13-14 (Sand SA-130-Is) Anchor E06-07 (Heterog. SA-175- Anchor E08-09 (Heterog. SA-130-
Is) Is)
14 14 14 14
13 13 13 13
-6.3 -6.3 -6.3 -6.3
12 12 12 12
11 -6.8 11 -6.8 11 -6.8 11 -6.8
10 -7.3 10 -7.3 10 -7.3 10 -7.3
9 -7.8 9 -7.8 9 -7.8 9 -7.8
8 -8.3 8 -8.3 8 -8.3 8 -8.3
7 7 7 7
-8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8
6 6 6 6
-9.3 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3
-9.8 -9.8 -9.8 -9.8



4 4 4 4
-10.3 -10.3 -10.3 -10.3
3 3 3 3
-10.8 -10.8 -10.8 -10.8
2 2 2 2
-11.3 -11.3 -11.3 -11.3
1 1 1 1
0 -11.8 0 -11.8 0 -11.8 0 -11.8
-1 -12.3 -1 -12.3 -1 -12.3 -1 -12.3

-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200
Figure 17. Dmeas versus Dnom for the inclined self boring hollow bar anchors SA-xx-Is in sand and in the heterogeneous clayey sand layer (for all anchors :
inclination equals 25° with regard to the horizontal and Dnom=xx corresponds with the diameter of the drill bit)

SA-150-Dy – vertical SA-150-Is – vertical SA-150-Dy – vertical

Dnom = 150 mm Dnom = 150 mm Dnom = 150 mm
BBRI Research 'Ground anchors' BBRI Research 'Ground anchors' BBRI Research 'Ground anchors'
Anchor VE06 (Sand SA-150-Dy) Anchor VE07 (Sand SA-150-Is) Anchor VE09 (Sand SA-150-Is)
2 2 2
D meas. D meas. D meas.
D nom D nom D nom
1 1 1
0 0 0
-1 -1 -1 top
top top soil surface
-2 -2 -2
-3 -3 -3
-4 -4 -4
-5 -5 -5
-6 -6 -6
-7 -7 -7
free-fixed free-fixed
-8 -8 free-fixed

-8 Relative Depth (R+xxm)

-9 -9 -9
-10 -10 -10
-11 -11 -11

bottom bottom
-12 -12 -12 bottom
-13 -13 -13
-14 -14 -14

-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200
Equivalent radius (mm) Equivalent radius (mm) Equivalent radius (mm)
Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.03* Dnom Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.03* Dnom Dmeas,Lfixed = 1.07* Dnom
Figure 18. Dmeas versus Dnom for the vertical self boring hollow bar anchors SA-150-Dy and SA-150-Is, Lfixed mainly in sand (Dnom corresponds with the diameter of
the drill bit)

3. DATA COLLECTED ON A WORK SITE IN KNOKKE

3.1. Introduction
During excavation works for the realisation of an underground parking on a site
in Knokke (B), anchors formerly installed during the construction of the
neighbouring basement were encountered. It concerned self boring hollow bar
anchors from the Ischebeck type, installed in dense quaternary sand (dune sand)
by the company CVR. Bars of the type TITAN 30/16 and drill bit with a
diameter of 90 mm (type HV375) were used
This excavation offered the opportunity to gather further information concerning
the real dimension of these anchor types.
The excavation took place on 4th March 2008, and 2 self boring hollow bar
anchor were dug out. Figure 19 gives an overview of the work site and
illustrates a CPT which provides an idea about the cone resistance of the sand
layer in which the anchors have been installed.
qc
2 10 20 30 [MPa]
5-
10-
15-
Figure 19: Overview of the work site in Knokke – CPT results
3.2. Methodology & Measurements results

A similar methodology as that one adopted for the Limelette site was used :
- permanent standby of BBRI staff was provided in order to guide the crane
operator,
- the soil in the direct neighbourhood of the anchors was manually removed,
- a photographic report with pictures each 50 cm has been created,
- soil and fissuring patterns descriptions have been made,
- the diameter of the grout has been measured. Dmeas.has been deduced from
perimeter measurements. Measurements were made each 20 cm or less in
case of irregular shape.
The results of these observations and measurements are given in the Annex A of
this contribution.

Figure 20 presents for both anchors the measured diameter as a function of the
length from the anchor bottom. Due to the presence of the ground water level, it
was not possible to excavate the last 50 cm of the anchors. Moreover, the
stability of the surrounding slopes enforced the site staff to stop the excavation
of the anchor A1 at 1.5 m from the bottom. Due to this, the effect of the post-
grouting operation at the anchor bottom could not be observed.
Figure 20 shows that the measured diameter of the anchor is in good agreement
with the nominal diameter (90 mm). A ratio Dmeas,av/Dreal of about 1.1 is found.
180
A1
A2
150
measured anchor diameter [mm]
120
90
60
30
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
length from the anchor bottom [m]
Figure 20: Dmeas versus Dnom for the inclined self boring hollow bar anchors SA-90—Is
investigated on the work site of Knokke
4. CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE REAL

ANCHOR DIAMETER & COMPARISON WITH
LITERATURE DATA
Table 2 summarises for each anchor type an overview of the average ratios of
Dmeas/Dnom along Lfixed, that were obtained from the observations in Limelette
and Knokke
From the values in Table 2 and the observations mentioned before the following
conclusions can be drawn:
For the IGU anchors it can in general be concluded that the measured diameter
is somewhat higher than the nominal anchor diameter due to local thickenings
induced during the drilling
For the systems with lost oversized drill point (1T) or drill bit (SA), it can be
concluded that the real anchor diameter Dmeas and the obtained anchor shape
depend strongly on the drilling procedure, i.e. the flow rate of the drill fluid
and/or the ratio between flow rate en drilling diameter in particular. The
comparison between the diameter measured on 1T-∅red and 1T anchors shows

clearly this effect. For SA installed on the Limelette site, it can be stated that the
flow rate (and/or the pressure) of the drill fluid, cement grout in this case, was
probably too low in order to realise an increase of the real anchor diameter with
regard to the drill bit diameter Dnom.
For the 1T+inj system that was provided with two post-grouting tubes, the effect
of the post-grouting operations has clearly been observed. Along the zone of
Lfixed where the manchettes were present, a significant increase of the diameter
up to 30% may be expected with regard to Dnom (in sand and heterog. layer)
Table 2 Overview of the Dmeas/Dnom ratios along Lfixed deduced from the investigated sites
VERTICAL ANCHORS
TYPE Dmeas Dnom Dmeas. / Dnom.
[mm]. [mm]. [-]
IGU 144 140 ± 1.03 (1.00 - 1.08)
1T 194 180 ± 1.08 (1.07 & 1.09)
1T+inj. 233 180 ± 1.29 (1.28 & 1.30)
SA-150 156 150 ± 1.04 (1.03 - 1.07)
INCLINED ANCHORS
IGU 154 140 ± 1.10 (1.04 - 1.14)
1T 201 180 ± 1.12
1T+inj. 216 180 ± 1.20 (1.15 - 1.24)
1T+∅red. 209 150 ± 1.40
SA-90(*) 98 90 ± 1.09
SA-130 136 130 ± 1.05 (0.97 & 1.12)
SA-175 166 175 ± 0.95 (0.86 & 1.04)
(*)
values deduced from the work site in Knokke
These results can be compared with the values in Table 3 that contains data
concerning empirical factors (αEXP) that accounts for an increase of the anchor
dimension in Lfixed with regard to the nominal diameter.
Table 3. Value of the coefficient α commonly used in Belgium [TA 95 (1995) and EBA (2004)]
Soil IRS (after TA 95) IGU (after TA 95) SA (after EBA)
Gravelly sands 1.5 – 1.6 1.2 – 1.3 2.0
Fine to coarse sands 1.4 – 1.5 1.1 – 1.2 1.5
Silt 1.4 – 1.6 1.1 – 1.2
Clay 1.8 - 2 1.2
When comparing the values in Tables 2 & 3, one can concluded that the values
of αEXP obtained from the observations in the framework of the BBRI research
on ground anchors deviate from the literature data, in particular for the self
boring hollow bar anchors.
With regard to those self boring hollow bar anchors, supplementary tests (phase
3) are actually performed on the Limelette test field in order to assess the
influence of the drilling procedure (intensive percussive drilling) on the real
anchor diameter and on the anchor capacity.
During this phase 3 of the test program, IRS anchors were installed in the loam
layer and are actually load tested as well.
In the coming months, some of the IRS and SA anchors installed in the loam
will probably be excavated in order to assess their real dimensions. The results
of these observations will be subject of an addendum to the Volumes of this
symposium.

Finally, based on the observations made in the (clayey) sand layer on IGU
systems and systems with lost point (1T) or drill bit (SA), it is proposed for the
moment to introduce Dnom (diameter of the casing, lost point or drill bit) in the
design.
5. REFERENCES
Huybrechts, N., De Vos, M., Tomboy, O., and Maertens, J. 2008. Integrated
analysis of the anchor load test results in Limelette and suggestions for a
harmonized anchor design and test methodology in Belgium in a EC7
framework, Proceedings of the international symposium on ground anchors,
May 14th 2008, Brussels.
Huybrechts, N., Tomboy, O. Maertens, J. and Holeyman, A. 2008b. Full scale

load test program in Limelette: overview of the test campaign, set-up & general
results, Proceedings of the international symposium on ground anchors, May
14th 2008, Brussels.
Recommandation TA 95 - Tirants d’ancrage 1995, Recommandations

concernant la conception le calcul, l’exécution et le contrôle.
Bustamante, M. & Doix, B. 1985. Une méthode pour le calcul des tirants et des
micropieux injectés, In Bull. liaison laboratoire des Ponts et Chaussées, n° 140,
Nov.-Dec. page 75-92
EBA Zulassung2004. Verwendung von Verpresspfählen System Ischebeck

TITAN zur temporären Sicherung von Baugrubenwänden bei den Eisenbahnen
des Bundes.

BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Annex A
A1
Type : Inclined – 35°
Installation method : SA-90-Is

Anchor information
Lbehind retaining wall [m]: 8.5
Instrumentation : NA
Test information Type : NA
Type : Sand
Soil information
qc,av ,global [MPa] : 20-30
Excavation of the anchors – O. Tomboy & N. Huybrechts – 14.05.2008 Annex A - p. 3/13

BBRI Research ‘Ground Anchors’ – Site Knokke. Anchor A1 ( SA-90-Is Sand)
0 – 0.5 m 0.5 – 1.0 m 1.0 – 1.5 m 1.5 – 2.0 m
2.0 – 2.5 m 2.5 – 3.0 m 3.0 – 3.5 m 3.5 – 4.0 m
4.0 – 4.5 m 4.5 – 5.0 m 5.0 – 5.5 m 5.5 – 6.0 m

The lengths are given with respect to the retaining wall. The anchor bottom is situated at 8.5 m from the retaining wall.

6.0 – 6.5 m 6.5 – 7.0 m 7.0 – 7.2 m

Soil description Fissures description
0 – 7.2 m Yellow/white coloured dune sand Not fissured except at 2.0 m where a
longitudinal fissure occurred.
General comments :
- Visual aspect : relatively straight anchor with some local deviations (picture a)
- Surface shows traces due to the drilling procedure. The traces disappear along the 2
last meters close to the bottom.
- Due to practical reasons, the anchor bottom could not be excavated, no enlargement
due to post-injection could consequently be observed
- Local small enlargement at 3m (picture b)
Picture a Picture b
Excavation of the anchors– O. Tomboy & N. Huybrechts – 14.05.2008 Annex A - p. 6/13

Ischebeck anchors : Knokke

Anchor A1 (∅ 90mm)

-100 -50 0 50 100
0
D meas.
D nom
1
3
Length from wall (m)
8 assumed
end


A2
Type : Inclined – 35°
Installation method : SA-90-Is

Anchor information
Lbehind retaining wall [m]: 8.5
Instrumentation : NA
Test information Type : NA
Type : Sand
Soil information
qc,av ,global [MPa] : 20-30

BBRI Research ‘Ground Anchors’ – Site Knokke. Anchor A2 ( SA-90-Is Sand)
0 – 0.5 m 0.5 – 1.0 m 1.0 – 1.5 m 1.5 – 2.0 m
2.0 – 2.5 m 2.5 – 3.0 m 3.0 – 3.5 m 3.5 – 4.0 m
4.0 – 4.5 m 4.5 – 5.0 m 5.0 – 5.5 m 5.5 – 6.0 m


6.0 – 6.5 m 6.5 – 7.0 m 7.0 – 7.2 m

Soil description Fissures description
0 – 8.0 m Yellow/white coloured dune sand Not fissured
General comments :
- Visual aspect : relatively straight anchor with some local deviations (picture a)
- Surface shows traces due to the drilling procedure. The traces disappear along the 2
last meters close to the bottom
- Due to practical reasons, the anchor bottom could not be excavated, no enlargement
due to post-injection could consequently be observed
Picture a

Ischebeck anchors : Knokke

Anchor A2 (∅ 90mm)

-100 -50 0 50 100
0
D meas.
D nom
1
3
Length from wall (m)
8 assumed
end

BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Integrated Analysis of the Anchor Load Test

Results in Limelette & Suggestions for
Harmonised Anchor Design and Test
Methodology in Belgium in a EC7 Framework
Ir. Noel Huybrechts, Ir. Monika De Vos & Ir. Olivier Tomboy
Prof. Ir. Jan Maertens

1. INTRODUCTION
This contribution summarizes the analysis of the load test results on different
anchor types performed in the framework of phase 1 and phase 2 of the anchor
test campaign in Limelette. In the contributions of Huybrechts & Maertens
(2008) and Tomboy & Huybrechts (2008) to this Volume a general overview
has been given of the anchor installation techniques, the test results and the
observations and measurements on the excavated anchors.
In this contribution it is the objective to summarize the methodology that has
been applied to analyse the test data taking into account all available data and to
formulate some general conclusions with regard to the Limelette anchor test
campaign.
For a detailed report of this integrated analysis, reference is made to Volume 2
of the proceedings of this symposium.
Finally, some suggestions for a harmonised anchor design and test methodology
in Belgium taking into account Eurocode 7 principles and anchor practice in
Belgium are formulated.
2. ANALYSIS OF THE TEST RESULTS

2.1. Determination of Pu
The ultimate anchor load Pu of the anchors has been deduced from the creep
curves obtained during the anchor load tests. For all anchors Pu has, according
to prEN ISO 22477-5, conventionally been determined as the load for which:
the creep value α=5 in the case where the maintained load test procedure
(TM3) has been applied,
the creep value α=2 in the case where the cyclic load test procedure (TM1)
has been applied.
The results for the 49 test anchors are summarized in Table 1.
It should be remarked that most of the anchors failed at the grout-ground

interface during load testing. However, for some anchors this Pu value might be
a slight underestimation of Pu as the mentioned conventional creep values were
not yet reached at the maximum test load Pmax (due to the steel limit), or due to
structural failure of the tendon (in one case).
Furthermore it is worthwhile to mention that in some cases the difference
between the values of Pu determined out of a the conventional creep values
mentioned above, or determined as asymptotic value in the creep curve,
(specified in different normative references), is significant. This has in
particular been found for the cyclic anchor tests (TM1) and the load test in the
more cohesive soil layers. Figure 1 gives an example. A detailed analysis can be
found in Volume 2 of the proceedings of this symposium.
Integrated analysis & suggestions for NA-EC7 – N. Huybrechts et al. – 14.05.2008 p. 3/21
Table 1 : Ultimate anchor load Pu of the anchors tested in Limelette – Pu determined out of
creep curve following prEN 22477-5 conventional criteria α=5 (TM3) or α=2 (TM1)
(*)Preliminary anchors
Inclined anchors of IGU type in Sand Layer
1600 (6') (60')

(60') (60')
(60')
1400 (increasing)
(increasing)
(60')
1200
1000
Load (kN)
(increasing)
Pmax
800
Pu
600
400
200
IGU-5m-TM3 IGU-6m-TM3 IGU-4m-TM3 IGU-5m-TM1
0
E16-17 E28-29 E15-16 E27-28 S1 S2 E2-3 E26-27 E4-5 E21-22 E30-31
Figure 1 : Comparison of ultimate anchor load Pu versus maximum applied test load (the value
between brackets equals the time in minutes that Pmax has been maintained before the anchor
failed – when increasing is noted that means that the anchor failed during increasing the load
for the next step – if no value is given than Pmax corresponds with mechanical steel limit or Pu)
2.2. Interpretation of the instrumentation

The test anchors in Limelette were instrumented with strain sensors, with which
the deformations of the anchors’ tendon were measured on several positions.
For the strand anchors (IGU - 2Tgrav – 1T – 1T+inj) strain gauges were fixed
on the strands in Lfixed. However, although more than 90% of the strain gauges
survived anchor installation a lot of them were damaged during the load test it
self so that only a limited amount of data was available for analysis.
For the self boring hollow bar anchors an extensometer device, which could be
installed in the hollow bars during testing, was developed by BBRI. In general
high quality data were obtained with this measurement device.
By multiplying the deformation measurements with a modulus of elasticity E
and a section A the corresponding load can be obtained. The factor EA
(rigidity) of the tendons was deduced from the measurement result by means of
the Fellenius method (2001). Form this method a non-linear stress (σ) -strain
(ε) behaviour, especially for the hollow bar tendons, was derived and applied
(see Figure 2).
900
800
700
600
stress (MPa)
500
400
300
Fellenius Ischebeck TITAN 73/45 (A=2260mm²)
Fellenius Dywidrill T76N (A=1900m²)
200
Fellenius strands (A=1057 mm²)
theoretical relationship (E=210 GPa)
100 fy TITAN 73/45
fy T76N
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
-6
strain (10 )
Figure 2 : Stress-strain behaviour of tendons deduced from Fellenius (2001) method
With this approach the following could be obtained for several anchors;
the friction losses in the free length Lfree, which exist out of internal friction
losses between tendon and plastic tubing and out of friction mobilised along
the outer of the grout column in Lfree
the load distribution in the anchor’s fixed length Lfixed
the mobilisation curves of the unit shaft friction (qsi – curves).
For the anchors installed in the heterogeneous clayey sand and the tertiary sand
layer, this analysis revealed average total friction losses in Lfree of 14% of the
ultimate anchor load Pu for the strand anchors and 19% of Pu for the self boring
hollow bar anchors.
For the anchors installed in loam, the load losses in Lfree corresponding with the
ultimate anchor load Pu have been estimated on 7% (based on limited
information).
For more details with regard to this analysis reference is made to Volume 2 of
the proceedings of this symposium.
2.3. Determination of qsu – global approach

The analysis in the previous point revealed that the values of the ultimate anchor
loads (Pu), which are deduced from the test measurements and given in Table 1,
should be corrected for friction losses, in order to quantify the load that has
really been transmitted to Lfixed. By correcting Pu for friction losses in Lfree and
taking into account the measured anchor dimensions from Tomboy &
Huybrechts (2008), an estimate has been made of the ‘real’ global ultimate unit
shaft friction qsu along Lfixed for all the tested anchors. In Figures 3
(heterogeneous clayey sand and tertiary sand) and 4 (loam/silt) these qsu values
are expressed as a function of the average cone resistance qc,av. along Lfixed of
each individual anchor.
On the figures 3 and 4 some other curves have been represented as well. It
concerns some qs-qc curves that are used on a regular base for anchor design in
Belgium based on CPT data; i.e. curves from TA95 (CFMS, 1995) for IGU and
IRS anchors and an empirical rule which states that qs=0.0033.qc with a
maximum of 466 kPa.
BBRI project Ground Anchors - Result Limelette qs(qc) in Sand & Heterogeneous layer
1000
qs = [Pu-W tot]/(π.α.Dnom.Lfixed)
IGU-TA95
900 - with real α or average if not available
- with real loss W tot or average if not available IRS-TA95
800 qc/30
IGU-sand-TM3
700 IGU-sand-TM1
IGU-Verticaal-TM3
600 IGU-Verticaal-TM1
qsu (kPa)
IGU-Het.-TM3
500 IGU-Het.-TM1
1T-sand-TM3
400 1T-Dred.-sand-TM3
1T-Verticaal-TM3
300 1T+inj-Verticaal-TM3
1T+inj-Het.-TM3
200 SA-sand-TM3
SA-Verticaal.-TM3
100 SA-Het.-TM3
2T-grav -Verticaal
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
qc,av (MPa)
Figure 3 : qsu-qc,av for anchors tested in tertiary sand and clayey sand in Limelette – only the
real load on the fixed length is considered (by taking into account friction losses in Lfree and the
real anchor diameter)
BBRI project Ground Anchors - Result Limelette qs(qc) in Silt layer
300
250
IGU-TA95
200 IRS-TA95
qc/30
qsu (kPa)
150 IGU-silt-TM3
SA150-silt-TM3
100 SA76mm-silt-TM3
qs = [Pu-W tot]/(π.α.Dnom.Lfixed)
50
- with α = 1 for SA and IGU
- with average loss W tot
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
qc,av (MPa)
Figure 4 : qsu-qc,av for anchors tested in silt (loam) in Limelette - only the real load on the fixed
length is considered (by taking into account friction losses in Lfree - α is assumed to be 1)
2.4. Relation between execution method, real anchor

dimensions and test results
In Volume 2 of the proceedings of this symposium, an attempt has been made to
represent on some figures some important anchor installation data together with
the measured anchor dimensions, the test method and the test results.
Two examples are given in Figure 5 for a 1T+inj anchor and an IGU anchor.
Figure 5 : Dmeas versus Dnom for an inclined 1T+inj anchor in the heterogeneous clayey sand
layer and an inclined IGU anchor in the tertiary sand layer - inclination equals 25° with regard
to the horizontal and Dnom corresponds with the diameter of the lost drill point(1T+inj.) or
diameter of the casing (IGU).
3. CONCLUSIONS ANCHOR LOAD TEST RESULTS

LIMELETTE
In the previous points a detailed analysis of the anchor load test results has been
presented: the test results have been corrected for friction losses in the anchors’
free length and the real anchor diameters have been introduced in order to assess
as precisely as possible the ‘real’ global unit shaft friction qsu along Lfixed. When
the results of this analysis are linked with the anchor execution parameters and
the results of the inclined versus vertical CPT the conclusions summarized here
below can be drawn.
Anchor capacity of the different anchorage systems in sand and clayey sand
From Figure 6, which is an adopted representation of the qsu-qc values from
Figure 3, it can be deduced that, for the anchors of which Lfixed is installed in
clayey sand with average cone resistances qc,av along Lfixed of 12 to 14 MPa and
in tertiary Bruxellian sand with qc,av between 16 and 26 MPa, the following
values of the ultimate global unit shaft friction qsu are obtained for anchors with
Lfixed between 4 to 6 m (after correction for losses in the free length and taking
into account Dreal) :
For the IGU anchors : 0.015qc,av < qsu < 0.030qc,av
For the 1T anchors : 0.013qc,av < qsu < 0.020qc,av
For the SA anchors : 0.015qc,av < qsu < 0.020qc,av
The gravity filled anchors 2T-grav show qsu value in the neighbourhood of
the lower boundaries of 1T and SA anchors at ± 0.013qc,av to 0.015qc,av
The 1T +inj. show qsu value in the neighbourhood of the higher boundary of
the IGU anchors at ± 0.025qc,av to 0.030qc,av
1000
qs = [Pu-W tot]/(π.α.Dnom.Lfixed) Min.-qc/65
900 - with real α or average if not available Max - qc/33
- with real loss W tot or average if not available Min.-qc/75
800 Max - qc/50
Min.-qc/65
700 Max - qc/50
IGU-sand-TM3
IGU-sand-TM1
600 IGU-Verticaal-TM3
qsu (kPa)
IGU-Verticaal-TM1
500 IGU-Het.-TM3
IGU-Het.-TM1
400 1T-sand-TM3
1T-Dred.-sand-TM3
300 1T-Verticaal-TM3
1T+inj-Verticaal-TM3
1T+inj-Het.-TM3
200 SA-sand-TM3
SA-Verticaal.-TM3
100 SA-Het.-TM3
2T-grav -Verticaal
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
qc,av. (MPa)
Figure 6 : qsu – qc curves of the anchors tested in clayey sand and sand - – only the real load on
the fixed length is considered (by taking into account friction losses in Lfree and the real anchor
diameter)
On the same Figure 6 it can be observed that:

the variation of the results is
o very high for the IGU anchors,
o lower for the 1T anchors,
o considerably low for the SA anchor;
the result of the gravity filled anchors 2T-grav are situated in the intervals of
the 1T and SA anchors;
the results of the IGU anchors that are situated in the area of the 1T and SA
anchors are almost all vertical anchors.
Out of these observations it might be concluded that the 1T and the SA anchors
that have been performed at the Limelette test site can be considered as gravity
filled anchors. This is not surprising when looking at the installation monitoring
of these anchors (almost no pressure during injection).
The fact that for the SA anchors the results can be situated in a narrower interval
is probably due to the very regular form of these anchors (see Tomboy, 2008).
Moreover the high variation obtained for the IGU anchors evidences the effect
of the stepwise grout injection procedure, and the beneficial effect of pressure
grouting on the obtained qs values. It is not surprising that the qsu values of
vertical IGU anchors are situated in the zone of the gravity filled anchors, as it
could in general be observed that the grout injection procedure was not very
successful for the vertical anchors (probably due to the shorter lengths Lfixed and
Lfree). Moreover, the shape of the vertical anchors seems in general to be some
what more regular than the shape of the inclined anchors.
The beneficial effect of pressure grouting and an irregular anchor form on the
anchor capacity is also confirmed by the results obtained for the 1T+inj anchors.
Anchor capacity of the different anchorage systems in silt (loam)

For the anchors of which Lfixed is installed in loam, the ‘real’ unit shaft friction
has been determined based on limited information: only for one anchor the
friction losses in the free length were determined, and based on observations for
the sand anchors it has been assumed that Dreal = Dnom. This leads to the
following results in loam with cone resistances between 3.4 and 4.5 MPa (see
Figure 4).
For the IGU anchors : qsu = 0.040 to 0.045 qc,av

For the SA-150-Dy : qsu = 0.030 to 0.040 qc,av
For the SA-76-Dy : qsu = 0.045 to 0.072 qc,av
Based on these results one can conclude that:

The variation of the results obtained for the IGU anchors is rather low. This can
probably be explained by the fact that the dimensions of the IGU anchors in the
loam layer are regular (assumption based on observation in Lfree of excavated
IGU anchors).
Moreover it has been observed during installation that the grout pressures that
could be realised in loam are comparable for the different anchors. With regard
to this stepwise grout injection it was found that the realised pressures were not
high (maximum 8 bar, mostly 5 bar) and that for each injection step grout
leakage to the surface occurred.
For the SA-150-Dy anchors installed with a drill bit with diameter of 150 mm,
the qsu values that are obtained are somewhat lower than those obtained for the
IGU anchors.
Out of the differences between the results of the IGU and the SA-150-Dy
anchors in loam, and out of the observations during installation, one could
conclude that the SA-150 anchors in loam can be considered as gravity filled
anchors and that the grout injection procedure for the IGU anchors show some
beneficial effect but less significant than in sand.
For the SA-76-Dy anchors installed with a drill bit with diameter of 76 mm, the
obtained qs values are ± 50% higher than the SA-150-Dy. As in general it is
assumed that in cohesive layers the unit shaft friction is independent from the
anchor diameter (cfr. Ostermayer & Barley, 2003), especially for gravity filled
anchors, this could possibly indicate that the real diameter is considerably higher
than the nominal drill bit diameter.
Influence of the inclination on the anchor capacity (anchors in sand)

On first instance, looking at the ultimate anchor load deduced from the test
results (see Table 1), it was found that for all systems the capacity of the vertical
anchors was significantly lower than the capacity of the inclined anchors.
However, after corrections for friction losses in the free length and taking into
account the measured anchor dimensions to determine the anchors’ ‘real’ unit
shaft friction, this difference becomes insignificant for the SA anchors and less
significant for the 1T anchors.
Only for the IGU anchors the vertical anchor capacity remains significantly
lower than the inclined anchor capacity, but as explained before, the main
reason for this is probably the less successful grout injection procedure
compared to that of the inclined IGU anchors.
Probably the less regular form and straightness of the inclined anchors might
explain some of the remaining differences as well.
Based on this argumentation it can be concluded that the inclination in itself has
no significant influence on the anchor capacity in the Limelette sand layer.
This was also confirmed by the comparison between cone resistances obtained
with vertical and inclined CPT showing no significant differences (See Volume
2 of the proceedings of this symposium).
With regard to the influence of the length on the bond stress, the bond stress
evolution and/or the (non-) linear increase of anchor capacity with Lfixed
Based on the obtained information about bond stress evolution along Lfixed as
deduced from the load distribution measurements (see Volume 2) it can be
concluded that:
For SA anchors with Lfixed up to 6 m in heterogeneous clayey sand and
tertiary sand tested according to the maintained load test procedure (TM3),
the value of the unit shaft friction qsi in the different anchor zones in Lfixed
continue to increase; no peak value and consecutively no residual value of qsi
have been observed. For some of these anchors that did not fail under Pmax
such behaviour was however observed when the anchor was submitted to
subsequent Pa-Pmax cyclic loading.
For IGU and 1T anchors in heterogeneous clayey sand and tertiary sand only
limited information was obtained from the measurements, but it is assumed
that the same conclusions as for SA anchors can be drawn.
For IGU anchors in loam (silt) with Lfixed= 5m, that were all tested according
to the maintained load test procedure TM3, measurements on one
preliminary tested strand anchor show that the qsi values of the first part of
Lfixed evolutes to a peak value and drops back to a residual value.
Although observed in a limited way for the more cohesive loam layer, it is
assumed that when anchors are submitted to a maintained load test procedure
(TM3), fixed anchor lengths up to 6m are too short to observe in the soil
layers in Limelette a non-linear increase of anchor capacity with length.
It also assumed that submitting anchors to cyclic testing favours a non-linear
increase of anchor capacity with length; as design methods in the UK and
Germany are calibrated with cyclic test methods, this is probably the reason
that they have introduced a length dependent efficiency factor in their design
(decreasing anchor capacity with length).
With regard to the influence of the test method on the anchor capacity
The maintained load test procedure (Test Method 3 or TM3 according to the
PrEN ISO 22477-5) has been applied as reference test method.
However, some anchors have been tested according to the cyclic test procedure
Test Method 1 (TM1) of PrEN ISO 22477-5. It concerns;
3 inclined IGU anchors in sand
2 vertical IGU anchors in sands
2 inclined IGU anchors in the heterogeneous clayey sand layer
In Table 2 the results of the load tests in terms of an ultimate global unit shaft
friction qsu (corrected for friction losses in Lfree and based on Dreal) and the ratio
with regard to the average cone resistance is given for the anchors tested
according to the TM1 method. In the same table the results of the reference
tests on the similar anchor types tested according to TM3 are also given.
Based on the results in Table 2 the following conclusions can be drawn:
For the IGU anchors in sand the ultimate unit shaft friction qsu for anchors tested
with TM1 is somewhat lower (~6%) than for the anchors tested with the TM3
method. Within the high variation obtained for all IGU anchors, such a
difference can not be considered as significant. This seems not surprisingly for
the Bruxellian sand layer and for limited fixed anchor lengths of 5 m.
Within the anchors tested according to the TM1 method no influence of the
number of cycles on the anchor capacity could be deduced.
For the IGU anchors in the heterogeneous clayey sand layer the difference
between qsu obtained from TM1 versus TM 3 method is higher, even up to 15%.
The more cohesive character of this soil layer could possibly explain such a
difference.
However as mentioned before it should be emphasized that large variations are
obtained for the IGU anchors.
Furthermore, as highlighted before, the ultimate anchor load Pu that has been
considered in this analysis has been determined according to the conventional
creep criteria of the PrEN ISO 22477-5. Analysis has shown that the Pu value
obtained in this way is, in some cases, lower than the ultimate anchor load
deduced from an asymptotic approach in the creep curve. This was especially
the case for the anchors installed in the more cohesive layers and the anchors
tested according to the cyclic TM1 method (example see Figure 1).
Table 2 : Comparison of qsu values obtained for IGU anchors tested with TM1 and TM3
With regard to the influence of the anchor diameter on the unit shaft friction
For the SA anchors in sand, different anchor diameters have been realised (Dnom
= 130 mm, 150 mm and 175 mm). Based on the measurements of the real
anchor diameters where it was shown that Dmeas ≈ Dnom and the detailed analysis
of the test results, represented in Figures 3 and 6 it can be concluded that the
obtained ultimate unit shaft friction is independent from the anchor diameters in
this diameter range.
For the SA anchors installed in loam; anchors with Dnom=76 mm and 150 mm
were installed. Assuming Dreal ≈ Dnom, large differences in qs values were
obtained. However these anchors have not been excavated and the real anchor
diameter could not be determined. Anyway, from literature (cfr. Ostermayer &
Barley, 2003) it is assumed that in cohesive soil layers anchor diameter does not
influence the qs value.
The same reference mention however that for pressure grouted anchors realised
in sand the anchor capacity in terms of kN/m is independent from the anchor
diameter (in a range of 100 to 150 mm). This means that qsu decreases with
anchor diameter.
In the Limelette test campaign this parameter has not been investigated for the
IGU anchors in sand.
For the 1T anchors in sand this parameter was introduced but upon excavation it
was shown that, although the drilling was performed with different diameters of
the drill tools, that the real diameter were ± equal, so that no conclusions could
be drawn on that point.
With regard to the effectiveness of the free length (Lfree) of self boring hollow
bar anchors (SA)
One of the parameters that has been investigated is the effectiveness of the free
length of the self boring hollow bar anchors. This was questioned, especially
due to the fact that the plastic tubing in Lfree is not continuously present over the
complete length (only between the coupling sleeves) and because grout
infiltration between tendon and plastic tubing is to be expected during
installation.
Based on the results of the load tests on self boring hollow bar anchors and
especially based on the load distribution obtained from the extensometer
measurements it can be concluded that:
For loads up 20 to 30% of Pmax, a relative stiff load-displacement behaviour was
measured. Together with the load distribution measurements it could be
deduced that the load was almost completely transferred to the soil in the free
length of the anchor.
However from that moment it could be deduced from the measurements that the
plastic tubing was detached from the surrounding grout and load was transferred
to the fixed length. This means that the plastic tubing fulfils its role to guarantee
a free anchor length.
The only difference that could be observed compared with the strand anchors,
for which the strands in the free length were greased, is that for the SA anchors
the internal friction between tendon and plastic tubing is ±5% higher.
With regard to the influence of the absence of spacers between the strands.
Some anchors have been installed without spacers between the strands. It
concerns the IGU anchors E09-10 and E07-08 installed in the heterogeneous
clayey sand layer. No influence on tendon-grout bond capacity nor on the
anchor capacity (grout-ground bond) has been observed for these anchors.
4. SUGGESTIONS FOR A HARMONISED DESIGN

APPROACH ACCORING TO EC7
4.1. Test methodology
As in the past no geotechnical standards existed in Belgium, many owners have
established their own technical specifications. This has lead to large variations
in the applied rules for anchor testing and design in Belgium. Within the
framework of the BBRI anchor research program (BBRI, 2004-2008) an
analysis has been made of several anchor specification documents and anchor
testing and design practices in Belgium. Taking into account the specifications
in the Eurocode 7 and the Pr EN ISO 22477-5 a proposal for a uniform
methodology for anchor testing in Belgium (terminology, test methods, aim of
testing, …) has been elaborated. The proposal that has been discussed in the
‘Working Group’ Ground anchors is presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Proposal for a uniform anchor testing methodology in Belgium

Acceptance tests
Investigation tests Suitability tests (NL: Aanvaardingsproeven
(NL : Basisproeven (NL: Geschiktheidsproeven Fr: Essais de réception)
Fr: Essais préalable) Fr: Essais de conformité)
active passive
To establish the ultimate resistance (Ra
and Rc) of an anchor at the grout-ground To confirm that a particular anchor design
To confirm that each executed anchor suits to
Goal of the test interface and to determine the characte- will be adequate in particular ground
support the load under serviceability conditions
ristics of the anchorages in the working condition
load range
on site
on another site with same stratigraphy
On site or elsewhere On site On site
reference tests (same stratigraphy and
same anchorage technology)
On proof anchors
Proof anchors Proof anchors Working anchors
or working anchors
Before starting the work (contract
Time of the test Sufficiently long before starting the works determines if the contractor can start before Afterwards
acceptance of the results)
Owner decides if
Tendering authority decides if investigation Owner decides if compulsory or not
acceptance tests are
Compulsory or tests are compulsory (depends on (depends on homogeneity, magnitude of the
compulsory or not, and
recommended availibility of references in the considered loading, cyclic loading or not,… and number On each anchor
the number if required
+ min. number soil type and load range) of tests if required
(If required : number
If required : min 2 or 3 If required : min 2 or 3
of tests)
To failure : Pp > Re (estimated resistance) 1.5 *Pk load under serviceability conditions
Pp = 1.15-1.25 * Pk Pp = 1.15-1.25 * Pk
Proof load(Pp) (e.g. Pp=1.5 * Re) (no distinction between permanent and
(Pk : 1*Gk + 1*Qk) (Pk : 1*Gk + 1*Qk)
Untill α=5 or 2 depending on Test Method temporary anchors). Pk : 1*Gk + 1*Qk
TM1 & TM3 (ISO) (owner shall determine TM1 & TM3 (ISO) (owner shall determine TM1 & TM3 (ISO) (owner shall determine the
Test method
the test method) the test method) test method)
Criteria: see TA 95 and DIN4125
Interpretation & Rc and Ra Criteria: see TA 95 and DIN4125
If OK: approbation (SF proven)
consequences “s-p”,”s-t”,”α-p” If OK : approbation
If NOK: reduced permissible anchor load or
if pos/neg resultat qs => statistics => calculations If NOK : disapproval or limited loading
further tests
Pk : Characteristic value of the load Gk : Characteristic value of the permanent load
Ra : ultimate load Qk : Characteristic value of the variable load
Rc : creep load Re : estimated resistance
Pp : proof load α: creep factor
Proof anchor = sacrificial anchor
4.2. Design methodology

After analysis of the Belgian practice with regard to anchor testing and design
methodology, 6 possible situations for anchor design, as summarised in Table 4,
are proposed.
Table 4 : Possible situations deduced from Belgian Practice
(*)
with comparable experience
(**)
not applicable
Acceptance tests
Suitability Design
Investigation tests
tests approach
Active Passive
anchor anchor
on all on X Based on test

1 On M anchors on the job site /
anchors anchors results
on M anchors on an other on N
2 similar site anchors on
Or M reference tests site
on M anchors on an other
3 similar site /
Or M reference tests
on N
on all on X Based on
4 / (*) anchors on
anchors anchors calculations
site
on all on X Based on
5 / (*) /
anchors anchors calculations
Based on
6 / (*) / NA(**) /
calculations
Remark that the type and number of anchor tests is an important variable in this
table. Furthermore a difference is made between active anchors and passive
anchors. This anticipates on Belgian practice, in particular on the application of
hollow bar anchors, existing out of steel with considerably lower yield strength
compared to pre-stressed steel, and which are in certain conditions not always
pre-stressed. For passive anchors, also a design situation (6) that is only based
on a calculation rule without any testing at all is proposed.
4.2.1. Design based on test results

It is proposed to introduce different factors of safety, in order to take into
account the type of tests and the number of tests performed
4.2.2. Design based on calculations

A possible approach to integrate the design situations, dealing with a calculation
rule, in a design methodology according to the Eurocode 7 principles is
suggested in Figure 7. This approach is mainly inspired on the Belgian design
methodology for axially loaded piles according to EC7 that was recently
published (BBRI, 2008).
In this design methodology the friction resistance is deduced from the cone
resistance measurements in CPT.
It is suggested that the different factors determining overall safety would be
dependent on:
the available soil investigation (correlation factors ξi)
the number of suitability test, (model factor γRd)
the number of acceptance tests (safety factor γa)
DESIGN APPROACH
qc 1 1 1
Ra , d ≈ α a .α EXP . . . .
η γ Rd ξi γ a
*
p
J CPT results
calculation rule : αa, ηp, αEXP
J values Ra,calc,i
γRd = f(anchor system , #Suit. tests)
J values
Ra,calib,i = Ra,calc,i / γRd
ξa3 and ξa4 = f(#J)
characteristic value
Ra,k = min (Ra,calib,mean / ξa3 ; Ra,calib,min / ξa4)
γa =f(#Accept. tests)
design value
Ra,d = Ra,k / γa
Figure 7 : Proposal for an approach for the determination of the pull-out resistance
a) Proposal calculation rule for ultimate unit shaft friction

In the formula represented in Figure 7 the ultimate unit shaft friction is
q
represented by α a . *c .
ηp
It is proposed to start from a shaft friction calculation rule as published in
q
(BBRI, 2008). The basic friction equals in that case *c and ηp* is the empirical
ηp
factor that provides the ratio between the shaft friction and the cone resistance
depending on the soil type pile (independent from pile or anchor type)
For sand this basic curve is represented in Figure 8. On the same figure the
experimental data from the tests in Limelette (Clayey sand and tertiary sand) are
added, as well as some calculation rules that are frequently applied in Belgium.
The basic friction calculated in this way needs to be multiplied by an empirical

installation factor αa that accounts for the installation procedure of the anchor
and ground type.
Based on the information obtained in Limelette and based on the contribution of
De Cock (2008) in this Volume the following classes might be defined for grout
type anchors:
CAT 1 : Gravity filled anchors
CAT 2 : Anchorage systems filled with primary pressure grouting
CAT 3 : Anchorages with a global post inject grouting system
CAT 4 : Anchorage with post grouting performed repetitively and
selectively injection pressure (IRS)
With regard to the installation factor it is obvious that these relate to each other
as follows: 1 ≤ αa,CAT1 < αa,CAT2 < αa,CAT3 < αa,CAT4
Specific values are not yet put forward at this stage as this is still under
discussion in the Working Group ‘Ground Anchors’.
Anyway, based on the test results in Limelette it can be concluded that :

The SA and 1T anchors can be situated in the CAT 1 (gravity filled anchors).
The IGU anchors, of which Belgian practice differs from the French
practice, are in general situated in CAT 2, although several of them,
especially the anchors where the pressure grouting was not successful, are
situated in CAT 1.
The T1+inj system, with simple serial post-injection system can be situated
in CAT 3.
One system can belong to a different category, depending on execution
parameters, pressure grouting in particular. This is shown by the wide
spread in the results of the IGU anchors. Also for the 1T anchors, it is not
excluded that, depending on drilling procedure, anchor lengths and soil type,
CAT 2 anchors can be realised. With regard to the post-grouting of the SA
anchors: in Limelette this post-grouting procedure was not successful
although other references proved the contrary (cfr. Maekelberg et al, 2008).
In phase 3 of the test campaign in Limelette, more tests on SA anchors,
which have been post-grouted, will be performed soon. Actually it is
anyhow not clear how to verify the effect from such post grouting
(monitoring?) and how to quantify the effect of the post grouting on the
anchor capacity.
Previous points underline the importance of the monitoring of the execution

parameters, pressure grouting parameters in particular. The challenge
however, is to elaborate criteria that determine in which category the anchors
belong for a specific site.
Actually, no conclusions could be drawn with regard to an “efficiency
factor” dealing with a decreasing unit shaft friction with increasing anchor
length.
Min.-qc/65
Max - qc/33
1000 Min.-qc/75
qs = [Pu-W tot]/(π.α.Dnom.Lfixed) Max - qc/50
900 - with real α or average if not available Min.-qc/65
- with real loss W tot or average if not available Max - qc/50
800 IGU-sand-TM3
IGU-sand-TM1
IGU-Verticaal-TM3
700
IGU-Verticaal-TM1
IGU-Het.-TM3
600 IGU-Het.-TM1
qsu (kPa)
1T-sand-TM3
500 1T-Dred.-sand-TM3
1T-Verticaal-TM3
400 1T+inj-Verticaal-TM3
1T+inj-Het.-TM3
SA-sand-TM3
300 SA-Verticaal.-TM3
SA-Het.-TM3
200 2T-grav -Verticaal
TA 95 - 1.15*IGU
100 TA 95 - 1.15*IRS
qc/30*1.3
NA EC7 - pile
0
EBA Ischebeck (1.5*150kPa)
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 Ostermayer
40 (Lf=4-6m / m.d. to d.)
qc,av. (MPa)
Figure 8 : Comparison of experimental data Limelette anchor test campaign and main rules
found in the literature; – for the experimental data from Limelette only the real load on the
fixed length is considered (by taking into account friction losses in Lfree and the real anchor
diameter)
b) Emperical factor αEXP

In the formula represented in Figure 7, an empirical factor αEXP that accounts for
an increase of the diameter of the fixed length due to the installation procedure
is introduced.
Based on the observations up to now it is proposed to introduce the nominal
diameter of the anchor in the design methodology (αEXP = 1). The nominal
diameter corresponds in this case with the dimensions of the drilling tools:
diameter of casing (IGU), lost oversized point (1T), diameter drill bit (SA).
Hereby it should be remarked that:
• For the self boring hollow bar anchors (SA), some discussions still exist and
some extra tests are still ongoing in order to verify in which way drilling
procedure might influence the anchor diameter. For smaller diameter drill
bits, some indications exist that an enlargement of the diameter is obtained,
in our opinion due to the effect mentioned in the next point. In phase three
of the test campaign in Limelette, the possibility exists to excavate some of
the SA anchors performed with a small drill bit (76 mm) in the loam (silt)
layer.
• For the systems with flushing around casing or hollow bar (1T, SA) it has
been observed that the ratio (flow rate drill fluid)/(diameter drill tool)
influences the anchor dimensions, but for the moment it seems very difficult
to quantify this effect in practice.
• A multiplication factor on the diameter (αEXP > 1) may be applied if post-
grouting operations are performed, or if it can be proved by the contractor.
Based on the observations on the 1T+inj anchors in Limelette, it seems
reasonable to propose for each successful injection stage with the simple
serial injection system a factor αEXP ≈ ± 1.10 over the anchor area where the
injection points (manchettes) are present. For the IRS anchors a more
detailed study is necessary. As mentioned before, in phase three of the
anchor test campaign in Limelette, IRS anchors have been installed in the
loam (silt) layer and will probably be excavated soon. These observations
and other experimental data with regard to IRS anchors, a.o. validated in the
TA-95, will be used to determine αEXP factors for IRS anchors.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this contribution an overview has been given of the methodology to analyse
the results of the anchor load tests (phase 1 and phase 2) on the Limelette test
field. The ultimate skin friction qsu along Lfixed has been deduced taking into
account friction losses in the anchors’ free length and the real anchor diameters.
The results of this analysis have been linked with the anchor execution
parameters and the results of the inclined versus vertical CPT in order to draw
the general conclusions.
Furthermore the principles of a uniform test and design approach for anchors in
Belgium according to Eurocode 7 have been explained.
The principles set out in this contribution take into account the Belgian
anchorage practice on the one hand. On the other hand it is inspired on the
methodology for pile foundations that was recently published in the Belgian
recommendations for the design of axially loaded piles according to EC7
(BBRI, 2008). Herewith it is aimed to obtain a coherent application of the EC7
in Belgium, and to link the safety factors with aspects as quality assurance
during execution and the number of tests on anchors that are performed.
Together with other available test data, a.o. from the third anchor test phase that
is going on for the moment in Limelette, this information will be transmitted to
the Belgian Commission responsible for the establishment of the national annex
(and background documents) of the Eurocode 7.
It is the role of this commission to work out these principles and to propose
values for the different factors.
6. REFERENCES
BBRI, 2004-2006 & 2006-2008. Ground Anchors – Establishment of a
standardized design method for ground anchor taking into account execution
methodology. Research program subsidized by the Belgian Federal Public
Service ‘Economy’ and the Belgian standardization institute, Conventions CC
CCN-119 & CC CCN-169
BBRI, 2008. Richtlijnen voor de toepassing van Eurocode 7 in België. Deel 1 :

het grondmechanisch ontwerp in uiterste grenstoestand van axiaal op druk
belaste funderingspalen / Directives pour l’application de l’Eurocode 7 en
Belgique. Partie 1 : Dimensionnement géotechnique à l’état limite ultime de
pieux sous charge axiale de compression. Document available in Dutch and
French on www.tis-sft.wtcb.be and www.bggg-gbms.be (English version will be
available by mid-2008)
CEN, 2004. Pr EN ISO 22477-5 – Geotechnical investigation and testing – Testing

of geotechnical structures – Part 5: Testing of anchorages
CFMS, 1995. Tirants d’ancrages – Recommandations T.A. 95 concernant la

conception, le calcul, l’exécution et le contrôle, Editions Eyrolles, Paris
De Cock, F. 2008. Ground Anchors : overview of types, installation methods and

recent trends, Proceedings of the international symposium on ground anchors,
Fellenius, B.H. 2001 From strain measurement to load in an instrumented pile,

Geotechnical News, March 2001.
Maekelberg, W., Bollens, Q., Verstraeten, J., Theys, F., De Clercq, E. &
Maertens, J., 2008. Practical Experience of TUC RAIL with Ground Anchors
and Micro-Piles, Proceedings of the international symposium on ground
anchors, May 14th 2008, Brussels
Ostermayer, H. & Barley, T. 2003. Ground anchors : paragraph 2.5 of the

Geotechnical Engineering Handboek – Vol. 2 procedures, edited by U. Smoltczyk
and published by Ernst & Sohn, 2003, Berlin.
Tomboy, O. & Huybrechts, N. 2008. Excavation of the ground Anchors:

measurements and observations, Proceedings of the international symposium on
ground anchors, May 14th 2008, Brussels
BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Practical Experience of TUC RAIL with Ground

Anchors and Micro-Piles
Ir Maekelberg Wim
Ir Bollens Quentin
Ir Verstraelen Jan
Ir Theys Frank
Ir De Clercq Eric
TUC RAIL N.V., Belgium

Design Department, Unit Soil and Water
Prof. Jan Maertens

1. INTRODUCTION
The latest years, the most important jobsites of TUC RAIL are the realizations
of the high speed railway in Belgium and the regional express network around
Brussels.
The high-speed railway, presently constructed, passes through Belgium and
links Paris-Brussels-Liège-Köln and Paris-Brussels-Antwerp-Amsterdam. At
this moment, the first jobsites of the regional express network around Brussels
are being started. For these projects, new constructions are often realized next to
the existing tracks in service, so special care must be given to the stability of
those tracks.
Soil anchors and micro-piles are often used to limit the deformations of the
retraining walls and to stabilize embankments of pore quality. Furthermore, new
constructions often have to be realized within limited work space, which has an
impact on the installation methods used to install the foundations. As micro-
piles can be installed with little rigs to great depths, these techniques are often
used in those situations.
Soil anchors and micro-piles also have an important implication on the stability
of the construction, so different kinds of in situ-tests are necessary to verify the
calculated bearing capacity and the integrity of those elements.
The results of these tests as well as the applied design methods and some
practical experiences, are discussed in this article.
2. THE USE AND INSTALLATION OF GROUND

ANCHORS AND MICRO-PILES FOR RAILWAY
INFRASTRUCTURES
2.1. Definitions
Ground anchors and micro-piles are used for various purposes and applications.
The choice between both is mainly determined by their specific application or
the amount of working space available for installation.
Drilling techniques for the installation of both are similar. However, their
configuration and purpose are different:
Ground anchors are tension only and consist of an anchor head which fixes
the anchor to the structure, an unbonded, or free section, which causes the
anchorage force to shift to deeper soil parts, near the bonded, or fixed
section. Distinction is made between active and passive ground anchors.
Active ground anchors are always pre-tensioned. The ground anchor is fixed
to the structure with a certain pre-tensioning force, which causes an elastic
elongation of the ground anchor to occur. At this equilibrium condition, the
reinforced structure will no longer be subjected to these displacements,
which also causes less settlement to occur behind the structure. This in term
is a big advantage for existing railway infrastructures.
Passive ground anchors are not pre-tensioned. These are used when it is not
desirable to transfer a load to the tied-back structure or when pre-tensioning
is not necessary to limit deformation of the structure.
Practical experience of TUC RAIL with ground anchors and micro-piles–Maekelberg et al. p. 3/42
Micro-piles are structural members to transfer actions, both tension and

compression, to the ground. Micro-piles have a small diameter (smaller than
300 mm outer diameter) and can be installed with small rigs. They are fully
grouted and the anchorage force is developed along its full length. Since the
build-up of the anchorage force occurs immediately behind the wall, there is
no use in applying a pre-tensioning force. This is referred to as passive
anchorage. Soil nails fall in this category.
2.2. Drilling of ground anchors and micro-piles

The following drilling techniques can be used:
1. Flushed rotary drilling with singular casing,
2. Flushed rotary drilling with dual casing,
3. Drilling with self-drilling rods.
These different techniques are described in F. De Cock 2008 [1].
TUC RAIL only accepts techniques 2 and 3 to be used on its sites. The main
reason for this is that most drillings have to be carried out in the railway
embankment, which is usually of intermediate quality. The embankments exist
mainly of loose, loamy sands or a mixture of ballasting materials and
incineration residues.
For tied-back walls next to or near existing structures which are sensitive to
settlements, such as active railways, it is necessary to limit the possibility of
borehole instability and consequently, settlements.
In the case of flushed rotary drilling with a dual casing, the outer casing ensures
the borehole stability.
When drilling with self-boring rods, the drilling cement fluid 1 itself stabilizes
the borehole. During the drilling process, a cake is formed on the borehole sides,
on which the drilling cement fluid exerts a stabilizing excess pressure which
keeps the borehole open. An added advantage of drilling with a cement fluid is
that any voids or loosely packed soils in the drilled soils are filled.
A W/C-ratio of 1 is often used as drilling cement fluid. However, the W/C-ratio
depends on the nature of the drilled soil layers and depth of the drilling. The
lightest cement fluid allowed on sites of TUC RAIL, has a W/C-ratio of 2, and is
used for drilling through homogeneous clay. The fine grains present in clay soils
mix with the drilling cement fluid, fulfilling a similar function as the already
present cement in stabilizing the borehole.
With increasing depth, it becomes harder and harder to circulate the drilling
cement fluid (and clear soil particles) to the surface, which limits the use of this
technique to a depth of about 30 m.
Both the flushed rotary drilling with dual casing as the drilling with self-boring
rods can be performed with rigs with a width of 3 m, length of 7 m and a boom
height that varies with the working conditions from 2 to 7 m (see figures 1a and
1b). When the working area is limited, the use of even smaller rigs may become
necessary. Often used smaller rigs have a surface area of 1,5 m by 3 m. The
smallest rig has a width of only 1,0 m and a length of 2,5 m. Photos 1a and 1b
show two confined working conditions and the use of small rigs.
1
Drilling cement fluid = mixture of cement and water with a given water/cement-ratio (W/C-
ratio)
When access to the site is difficult, the boom can also be fixed to an excavator,
as shown in photo 2. This gives the ability to work at greater heights and at
further distance from the working platform.
In some cases, the ground anchors and micro-piles are installed by hand, as
shown in photo 3. The boom is fixed to a small and mobile structure.
However ground anchors and micro-piles installed with smaller rigs are limited
in borehole diameter, depth and bearing capacity.
Figure 1a: Rig for installation of ground anchors and micro-piles – Cross section
Figure 1b: Rig for installation of ground anchors and micro-piles – Plan view
Photo 1a: Installation of micro-piles –Rig width 1.5m
Photo 1b: Installation of ground anchors– Rig width 1.0m
Photo 2: Installation of nails – Boom fixed on excavator
Photo 3: Installation of nails– “Manual” device
2.3. Reinforcement and injection of ground anchors and

micro-piles
After drilling of the borehole, the drilling cement fluid is always replaced by a
injected cement fluid with a W/C-ratio of 0,6 for temporary ground anchors, and
0,5 for permanent ground anchors. Reinforcement depends on the drilling
technique or function of the ground anchor and micro-pile.
Ground anchors drilled with the dual casing technique can be reinforced with
soft steel rods, S460N, or strands. When strands are used, the free length of each
strand should be sealed within a PVC tubing filled with anti-corrosive grease.
Ground anchors installed with self-boring rods are always reinforced with a
hollow rod in soft steel, S460N. The hollow rods have a continuous thread along
their full length.
Independent of drilling technique, the free length is realized with a smooth PVC
piping across the soft steel reinforcement. For temporary ground anchors, these
smooth pipes can be placed along the reinforcement rods, between the couplers.
The inner diameter of the pipes is a little smaller than the outer diameter of the
couplers, and the length of the pipe is a little longer than the theoretical distance
between the couplers. This ensures a tight seal between the couplers and pipe.
For permanent ground anchors, the smooth pipe needs to be placed continuously
along the reinforcement rod and couplers to avoid long-term corrosion around
both the rods and couplers. The inner annulus of the PVC pipe needs to be filled
with cement fluid or any other corrosion protective material.
For permanent ground anchors, the use of strands is not allowed since the use of
a corrosion protection agent on these strands can lead to an improper installation
and these types of reinforcements tend to fail in a more brittle way and are more
susceptible to corrosion, certainly in railway applications. The strands work as
separate elements, and with corrosion of the strands and failing of one strand,
the force is distributed among the remaining strands, which are also subjected to
corrosion. This can lead to failure of the ground anchor as a whole.
Micro-piles are always reinforced with rods of soft steel, with a continuous
thread along their full length. For permanent micro-piles, a corrugated PVC pipe
is placed along the head of the pile in the fresh cement fluid. The length of this
pipe amounts to 2 m, of which 1,5 m is placed within the fresh cement fluid of
the pile. After execution of the pile, a lowering of the grouted top level can
occur, this has to be replenished within 24h. During replenishment of the micro-
pile, the inner part of the corrugated PVC pipe needs to be filled to a level of 0,5
m above the top of the pile. Both insure that settlements will not cause the hole
to collapse and that the reinforcement rod is grouted along its full length. For
inclined micro-piles, the corrugated PVC pipe aids in protecting the
reinforcement at the pile cut-off level (as shown in figure 2).
When micro-piles are anchored in foundation footings, the corrugated PVC pipe
is cut off at about 10 cm above the bottom level of the footing (see figure 3).
This section is anchored to the foundation footing and presents a corrosion
protection against infiltrating water that is situated beneath the foundation.
For micro-piles which are attached to a wale, the PVC pipe is removed till the
outer limit of the wale (see figure 2).
It is most important to guarantee the grout coverage of the reinforcements. For
this purpose, spacers are used for both permanent and temporary ground anchors
or micro-piles. These are placed every 3 m and must guarantee coverage of at
least 15 mm at the couplers. Minimal coverage at the reinforcement rods or
strands is 25 mm. For permanent ground anchors, the reinforcement is limited to
soft steel to which an excess thickness is added to account for corrosion. This
excess thickness amounts to 2 mm.
Figure 2: Anti-corrosion protection for ground anchor – Ribbed tube
Figure 3: Anti-corrosion protection for micro-pile – Ribbed tube
After drilling the borehole for the ground anchor or micro-pile with a dual
casing, relaxation of the surrounding soil can occur. This is compensated for by
an injection of cement fluid every 2 m while pulling the casing (IGU, Injection
Globale et Unique sous faible pression, Global and unique injection under low
pressure pi) (0,5pl<pi<pl 2 and pi>1,0 MPa) [2]. Alternatively, IRS injection
(Injection Répétitive et Sélective sous pression élevée, repeatedly and selective
injection under high pressure) (pi>pl and pi<4 MPa) [2] uses specialized
equipment to inject through injection tubes at selected injection sleeves
(manchettes), one by one. This has so far been used only once at sites of TUC
RAIL.
Sometimes, separate injection pipes (min of 2) are added to the reinforcement
with injection openings every 0,5 m, which can’t be individually selected for
injection. This enables a final injection with a minimum of two phases. With this
type of installation, the injection opening with the least resistance will open first,
and others may not open at all. So it can thus not be guaranteed that the injection
is carried out across the entire length of the ground anchor. Since injection is
carried out with a minimum of 2 phases, this technique can only be regarded as
an enhanced IGU injection.
In the case of self-drilling rods, relaxation of the soil around the hole is
compensated for by performing a post-injection through the inner annulus of the
reinforcement rods. This injection is done with a cement fluid with a W/C-ratio
of 0,6 for temporary anchors and 0,5 for permanent anchors. The waiting time
between installing the ground anchor or micro-pile and the post-injection
depends mainly on soil types and length of the ground anchor or micro-pile, and
varies between a minimum of 30 min and a maximum of 3 h.
With every post-injection, it is attempted to inject around 5 l/m of anchor at a
moderate injection rate. The maximum injection pressure is 60 bars. Surface
breakthrough must be avoided during post- injection.
2.4. Applications
Ground anchors and micro-piles are used for various purposes and different
structures, both as temporarily and permanent reinforcements and foundations.
Temporary applications consist mainly of:
Tied-back walls (see figure 4). The primary functions of the ground anchor
are to ensure the stability of the construction and to limit displacements of
the wall as well as the accompanying settlement behind the wall. This is an
important issue next to active railways,
Temporary foundations of a building to allow excavations close to the
building (see figure 5). This is often the case with soil remediation,
Soil nailing for retaining construction pits (see photo 4).
Permanent applications are mainly:
Foundations of bridges and overpasses where limited working space is
available for the installation of piles,
Deepening of foundations and walls (see figure 6),
Tying-back of walls (see figure 7),
Stabilizing existing railway embankments (see figure 4).
2
Pi = injection pressure; pl = Ménard limit pressure (pressiometer)
Figure 4: Anchoring of retaining wall next to Figure 5: Temporary foundations of a

active railway building
Photo 4: Construction pit with soil nailing
Figure 6: Deepening of wall foundations
Figure 7: Tied-back retaining wall with secans-piles
2.5. Mechanical ground anchors/micro-piles

In some cases, the ground anchors must be able to accommodate a tensile force
immediately after installation. This can be necessary to avoid long hardening
times of classic cement grouted ground anchors, and thereby increase efficiency
and speed of installation of the entire structure.
Two types of mechanical ground anchors are used: screwed and plate dowels
(see photo 5a and 5b).
This type of foundation needs larger displacements to mobilize a same amount
of bearing capacity. This is inherent to the concept. At present, this type of
reinforcement has only been used in specific cases. This type of ground anchor
is not discussed further in this article.
Photo 5a: Screwed dowels Photo 5b: Plate dowels
3. DESIGN OF GROUND ANCHORS AND MICRO-

PILES (TUC RAIL)
When designing ground anchors or micro-piles, both practical and design
considerations are taken into account.
3.1. Practical considerations to the design

Practical considerations are mainly the accessibility of the construction site and
available surface area for installing the ground anchors and micro-piles.
Based on local conditions, the appropriate equipment must be used while
optimizing construction efficiency. This must take into account the capability of
the equipment with respect to the drilling diameter and attainable depth. In some
cases, the use of different types of rigs may become necessary to attain a
feasible design.
E.g. the use of smaller rig may be required to install the first rows of nails in a
deep cut, hereby creating a working platform for bigger rigs to carry out the
remaining part of the installation. These first rows may be installed with manual
equipment, to a limited depth (see photo 3 and figure 8a and b). After
installation of these first rows, a working platform can be created on which a
bigger rig can install longer nails between the shorter, manually installed, nails,
insuring stability of the complete deep cut (see figure 8c). These secondary nails
can be installed with a boom fixed to an excavator, which enables the machine
to reach greater heights. Progressive cuts may make use of more ‘regular’ rigs,
increasing construction efficiency (see figure 8d).
Figure 8a: Nailed Wall – 1st phase: manual installation
Figure 8b: Nailed Wall – 1st phase: manual installation - Detail
Figure 8c: Nailed wall – 2nd phase: nails executed with boom fixed on excavator
Figure 8d: Nailed wall – other phases : nailed installed with ‘normal’rigs
3.2. Calculation of ground anchors and micro-piles

The bearing capacity of a ground anchor or micro-pile is calculated based on the
expected loads and combination of loads. A distinction is made between
permanent loads and variable loads.
Permanent loads consist of the weight of the structure (e.g. the weight of the
bridge and abutments), soil loads that are transferred to the construction by
friction along the contact, as well as any pre-tensioning load applied.
Variable loads are loads linked to traffic loads or possible thermal loads. For
railway constructions, the most conservative loads as caused by UCI convoys
are taken into account, including accompanying braking and acceleration loads.
For the case of ground anchors, the variable and permanent loads are added to
obtain a maximum load in service limit state (SLS). This maximum load is
compared to the resistance of the ground anchor to failure, for which a factor of
safety of 1,7 (temporary ground anchor) to 2 (permanent ground anchor) is
required (see [2], annex 3, pp 139-150).
To minimize the risk of failure of the structure, the design of retaining walls has
to ensure that at least 2 ground anchors are placed on each wale. For permanent
ground anchors, the maximum load is limited to about 350 kN per ground
anchor. This way, the structure is anchored by several ground anchors, which
minimizes the effect of failure of one of the ground anchors. The minimum
length of the fixed section of the ground anchor is 4 m.
To determine the free length of a ground anchor, the safety against deep sliding
needs to be determined. The ground anchor is always anchored behind the slip
plane with the lowest safety. In the case of a single row of ground anchors, the
KRANZ method can be used to perform the stability check (see [2], annex 1, pp
117-128). However, the minimal (practical) free length amounts to 3 m.
With micro-piles, the different permanent and variable loads are summed to
obtain a maximum load for each loading condition. This is done by:
Fmax = χ PL ⋅ FPL + χ ML ⋅ FML (1)

With
Fmax = maximum load of each loading condition (kN)
χ PL = weighing factor on permanent loads

FPL = permanent load taken into consideration (kN)
χ ML = weighing factor on variable loads
FML = variable loads based on the conservative position of UCI
convoys and wind (kN)
Table 1 summarizes the weighing factors for each loading condition (see [3],
Chapter 5, pp 22-25).
Table 1: Summary of different loading conditions
χ PL χ ML
1.35 1,45 FULSfundamental ≤ RULSfundamental
1.00 1,00 FSLScharacteristic ≤ RSLScharacteristic
1.00 0,00 FSLSpermanent ≤ RSLSpermanent
For each load condition these maximum loads are compared to the minimal
required resistance of the micro-pile, as indicated in table 1.
In each loading condition, the resistance of the micro-pile requires a specific
factor of safety against failure of the micro-pile.
R Rug Rus
R = u = min( ; ) (3)
S Sg Ss
With
Ru = failure of the ground anchor or micro-pile (kN)
Rug = geotechnical failure resistance of ground anchor or micro-pile
(kN)
Sg = specific factor of safety against Rug (see table 3)
Rus = structural failure resistance of the ground anchor or micro-pile

(kN)
Ss = specific factor of safety against Rus (see table 4)
The minimum failure resistance Ru of the micro-pile is determined as the
minimum of the structural failure resistance Rus (failure of the pile itself) and
the geotechnical failure resistance Rug (failure between pile and soil) (see [4],
informative annex D), as can be deduced from formula (3).
Ru = min( Rug , Rus ) (4)
The geotechnical failure resistance

Rug is calculated according to
“Recommandations Tirants d’ancrage 1995” [2] as follows:
Rug = α ⋅ Dd ⋅ π ⋅ ∑ Li ⋅ q sui
i (5)
With
α = drill bit diameter expansion factor
Dd = diameter of drill bit (m)
α ⋅ Dd = diameter of drilled hole (m)
Li = fixed length of the ground anchor or micro-pile in the
considered soil (m)
q sui = unit friction resistance of the ground anchor or micro-pile in the
considered soil (kN/m2)
The unit friction resistance q sui is always based on soil investigation. In
Belgium, soil investigation consists mostly of CPT tests. In certain cases, also
pressiometer test results are available. TUC RAIL’s view on soil investigation
was already discussed in W. Maekelberg 2003 [5].
Based on the soil identification obtained through drillings, and the cone
resistance from CPT tests, the unit friction resistance is determined by abacuses
for each soil type [2]. The cone resistance used to determine the unit friction
resistances is an average value for each distinct soil layer. Based on experience
from pull-out tests on ground anchors and micro-piles in similar soil conditions,
these values can be modified.
The α − value to be used depends on soil type and technical installation. Table 2
presents an overview of the α − value as described by TA95 [2].
Table 2: Overview of α − values in common soils

IGU
(0,5pl<pi<pl and pi>1,0 MPa)
α − value α − value
(TA 95) (TUC RAIL)
Gravel 1,3 à 1,4 1,3
Sand 1,1 à 1,2 1,2
Loam 1,1 à 1,2 1,2
Clay 1,2 1,1
Marl & Chalk 1,1 à 1,2 1,1
Rock 1,1 1,05
Experience with Belgian soils shows that the q su -values as reported by
Bustamante are low in the case of sandy soils [2]. Therefore, when calculating
ground anchors and micro-piles, an upper limit for the α − value is used.
For the clayey soils, the q su -values as reported by Bustamante are realistic.
However, taking into the account that most Belgian clays are rather stiff in
nature, the specified α − value is rarely obtained. Therefore, a smaller value is
used.
For vertical tension piles, the geotechnical failure resistance Rug is the
minimum of the geotechnical failure resistance as discussed above and the
active weight around the tension pile. Therefore a check of the active weight
around the tension pile must be performed (see figure 9). This is detailed in [2],
annex 2, pp 129-138.
Figure 9: Active weight around tension piles
The specific factors of safety against Rug are summarized in table 3.
Table 3: Specific factors of safety against Rug for each load condition
Sg
RULSfundamental 1,40
RSLScharacteristic 1,54 = 1,40 ⋅ 1,10
RSLSpermanent 1,96 = 1,40 ⋅ 1,40
For temporary conditions, the safety factor for the SLS loading condition is
reduced to 1,7 instead of 1,96.
The structural failure resistance Rus of a ground anchor or micro-pile is
determined by the steel section of the reinforcement.
The structural failure resistance is calculated as follows:
Rus = f y ⋅ As (6)
With
fy = elastic limit of steel (N/mm2)
As = net steel section, after deduction of excess thickness to account

for corrosion (mm2)
The specific factors of safety against Rus for each loading condition are
summarized in table 4.
Table 4: Specific factors of safety against Rus for each load condition
Ss
RULSfundamental 1,15
RSLScaracteristque 1,25
RSLSpermanent 1,54
For permanent ground anchors, only soft steel reinforcement is used. The steel
section incorporates an excess thickness of generally 2 mm to account for
corrosion. Up to 4 mm of excess thickness is used for permanent pre-tensioned
ground anchors.
4. FIELD TESTS ON GROUND ANCHORS AND

MICRO-PILES
4.1. Definitions
The following different types of tests can be performed (see [2], chapter 5, pp
69-75 and chapter 6, pp 83-103) and [4]:
Investigation test (according to EN 1537): these tests are performed in
statistically sufficient numbers in the vicinity of the construction site, in
similar soils as the final installed ground anchors or micro-piles. These tests
are to be carried out well before start of the construction and until failure.
Based on interpretation of the test results, a characteristic q su - value can be

determined which can be used to design the ground anchors and micro-piles.
Suitability tests (according to EN 1537): these tests are carried out at the
start of the construction, just before start of the further installation, to verify
the assumed q su -value and to validate the used installation method. For each
encountered soil type, at least 2 tests are performed till failure.
Control tests: these tests are carried out on installed ground anchors or
micro-piles to verify the correct installation. The maximum load during
these tests is however limited. One test is carried out for each 40 instalments,
with a minimum of 2 per job site.
Acceptance test (according to EN 1537): these tests are performed on all
active ground anchors, just before pre-tensioning them.
Since investigation tests require a separate early tendering, these tests are rarely
carried out by TUC RAIL. The design of ground anchors and micro-piles always
makes use of the recommendations in TA 95, as explained above.
Suitability tests are used to verify the assumptions made in the design
calculations, and are thus usually carried out at the start of each construction.
For jobsites where only micro-piles are used, the suitability test is the only test
performed. When ground anchors are included, control and acceptance tests are
carried out along with the suitability tests.
4.2. Suitability and control tests on ground anchors and

micro-piles
All tests are carried out on ground anchors and micro-piles, which are installed
with the same technique, and at the same angle as planned for the final
construction.
To eliminate the friction in the top soft layers, a smooth PVC pipe is inserted
across the reinforcement (rod and couplers) along these soft layers.
Alternatively, the friction in these soft layers is taken into account when
determining the applied load.
After sufficient curing (minimum 8 days), the loading test is carried out on the
ground anchors and micro-piles to a load of twice the calculated service load for
suitability tests, and 1,30 time the service load for control tests. The execution of
these tests is always confided to a certified laboratory.
Since the calculation of micro-piles always neglects the bearing capacity at the
tip, tensile test are performed for both ground anchors and micro-piles.
The reaction device to perform the tests must always be able to withstand the
applied load, and must be designed as such. The test set up is shown in figures
10a and b and photo 6.
It needs to be noted that while performing a load test up to 500 kN, independent
of the presence of a free length, a circle of at least 1 m radially around the
ground anchor or pile, must be free of any support of the reaction device or
measuring point. For maximum loads larger than 500 kN, this free zone extends
to 2 m around the ground anchor or pile.
Figure 10a: Reaction device for pull out test – Cross section
Figure 10b: Reaction device for pull out test – plan view
Photo 6: Reaction device for pull out test – micro-pile
Figure 11 shows the test set up for an inclined ground anchor. The load is
applied with a hydraulic piston which is operated manually with a feeding
pump. The flow rate of the pump allows precise control of the applied pressure,
which needs to remain constant during each loading step. Since the difference
between consecutive load steps may be significant in some cases, the use of
electric pumps in parallel with the manual pump is allowed. In any case, the
pumps must avoid any abrupt changes in pressure to occur and certainly any
temporary overloads.
Figure 11: Reaction device for pull out test – ground anchor
The measurement of the applied load must be accurate within 2 % of the

theoretically applied load. The system (jack and measuring device) must be
calibrated every 6 months in an independent certified laboratory and is always
accompanied by a calibration certificate.
The test procedure is detailed further in the following references [6] and [7].
For ground anchors, also the French standard NF P94-153 [8] is used.
The loading stages, as described in the above references, are adapted as follows:
At the start of the test, a load Q0 is applied to secure the piston to the
reaction device with a certain pressure. At load Q0, a reference measurement
of the displacement is taken.
The maximum load Qmax is applied in 10 equal stages, each lasting for 60
min (investigation tests) or 30 min (suitability tests).
The duration of stages 0,1 . Qmax and 0,3 . Qmax is limited to 1 min, with
measurement of the displacement.
When failure does not occur at the maximum load of Qmax, two extra loads
are applied (1,1 . Qmax and 1,2 . Qmax), as far as the stress in the
reinforcement remain below 90% of the yield limit of the steel.
The unloading stages are as follows:
After the final loading stage, the ground anchor or pile is unloaded in steps
of 0,2 . Qmax each having a duration of 5 min.
Displacements are measured at 0, 1, 2 and 5 min.
The final stage, Q0, is maintained for 10 min with an extra displacement
measurement at 10 min.
For interpretation of the results, one can refer to [2] and [6]. When the
maximum applied load approaches or equals the ultimate resistance, the failure
resistance can be determined. The service limit resistance of the ground anchor
or micro-pile corresponds to:
RSLS ≤ 0.90 ⋅ Rc for temporary ground anchors and micro-piles
RSLS ≤ 0.80 ⋅ Rc for permanent ground anchors and micro-piles
with
Rc = yield of the ground anchor or pile, as determined by the test
(kN)
When the maximum applied load is not close enough to the ultimate resistance
of the ground anchor or micro-pile, the yield of the ground anchor or micropile
can not be deduced. Then the service limit resistance corresponds to the highest
load at which the elongation Δe between times t+5min and t+60min(30min)
meets the following requirements:
Δe ≤ min(1,25mm;10 −4 ⋅ L free ) for temporary applications,
Δe ≤ min(1,00mm;10 −4 ⋅ L free ) for permanent applications.
with
L free = the free length of the groundanchor (m)
4.3. Additional tests on ground anchors and micro-piles

4.3.1. Validation of the free length ([4], § 9)
In this type of test, the ground anchor is subjected to a minimum of 3 loading-
reloading cycles between 0 and the tensioning force. This allows drawing up the
force-displacement curve. The ‘apparent’ free length, as determined from the
force-displacement curve, subtracted with the ‘tensioning length’, as the
distance between the fixation point at the tierod (nut) and the clamp within the
tensioning device, is compared to the specified free length as indicated on the
construction drawings.
Acceptance criteria are as follows:
The apparent length minus tensioning length should not exceed the sum of
the specified free length and half of the specified tensioning length, as
indicated on the construction drawings. Alternatively, they should not
exceed 1,1 time the specified free length.
The apparent length minus tensioning length may not be smaller than 80%
of the specified free length.
At the start of construction, the first 5 ground anchors are tested. Afterwards,
one out of 20 ground anchors is tested. At each of these tests, the loss in
tensioning force at the anchor nut is determined, to take this into account when
tensioning the tierods.
4.3.2. Acceptance tests on ground anchors

Before tensioning the ground anchors, the necessary tests (suitability tests,
control tests, check of the free length, check of the tensioning losses) need to be
performed and approved. Tensioning can only begin at least 8 days after
installation (just as well as the tests).
Before tensioning the ground anchors to 80% of their service load, all ground
anchors are subjected to an acceptance test at which the ground anchors are
tensioned to a force of 1,3 times the service load. During these fixation tests, the
elongation of the ground anchor is measured during 15 minutes. The measured
displacements between the measurements at 3 and 15 minutes, need to be
smaller than 1 mm.
If this doesn’t occur, the further procedure is described in [2].
4.3.3. Measurement of time dependency of stress

For some important constructions, certain control measurements are taken at the
ground anchors. During the first year after tensioning the tierods measurements
are taken every 3 months. During the second year after tensioning, a
measurement is performed every 6 months. Finally, during a 5 year period,
annual measurements are performed.
In a first instance, ground anchors that were subjected to a control test are fitted
with an analogue measuring gauge (see photo 7). However, other ground
anchors can be equipped as well.
Photo78: Analogue measuring gauge
5. CASE STUDY 1: SOIL NAIL REINFORCED WALL,

ANTWERP-BERCHEM
5.1. Introduction
In order to construct the HSL-connection between Brussels and Amsterdam, as
well as to increase the capacity of the Antwerp railway station, a tunnel beneath
the central station was constructed between 1998 and 2007 (see figure 12). The
access ramp is situated between the Berchem and Antwerp stations, and is
situated beneath the existing railway embankment.
Figure 12: Tunnel under Antwerp – Cross section
The first construction phase (1998 – 2001) consists of the realisation of the
tunnel side walls and roof. This was done in two sub phases. As separation
between both work areas, a soil nail reinforced wall is situated across the entire
length between the work area and an active railway between Berchem and
Antwerp station (see figure 13). The soil nails were installed with self-drilling
rods. During the construction, several suitability tests were carried out, and
some installed nails were excavated and measured.
Figure 13: Tunnel under Antwerp - Sub phase 1 – Cross section
5.2. Suitability tests

5.2.1. Installation of nails
The nails were drilled, as described above, with the exception that:
The drilling cement fluid (W/C=1) was not replaced with an injected cement
fluid (W/C=0,6) at the end of the installation.
Post-injection was carried out with a W/C = 1.
The nails were installed at a 20° angle and were anchored in the fill between the
supporting walls of the railway embankment (see figure 13). The hollow
reinforcement rods have an outer diameter of 30 mm and inner diameter of 16
mm. The drill bit had a diameter of 75 mm. The length of the nails was limited
due to the distance to the supporting walls.
To check the pull-out failure of the nails, a total of 8 test-nails were installed and
subjected to suitability testing. These test-nails are, just as the final nails,
anchored in the fill between the supporting walls. This embankment consists
mainly of heterogeneous fill and sand, with an average cone resistance of about
2 MPa (see figure 14).
Figure 14: Tunnel under Antwerp - Soil characteristics
The test-nails have a free length, obtained with a PVC pipe along the first 2 m of
the tie rod. Every test nail had a fixed length of 3 m. Both the free and fixed
lengths are minimal lengths to avoid side effects of the embankment walls (see
figure 13).
The test procedure used was described in paragraph 4. The maximum load was
applied in 8 or 10 steps, each lasting 30 min. A maximum load with a value of 2
times RSLS , or thus the theoretical failure load, was proposed.
5.2.2. Interpretation of results

Table 5 summarizes the RSLS -values of the 8 test-nails, with their accompanying
displacements. The indicated unit friction was determined by assuming that the
full tensile force was equally distributed along the fixed section of the nail (3 m)
and with a borehole diameter of 0,15 m, as suggested by the manufacturer of the
nails.
Table 5: RSLS -values for test nails
RSLS -values
V17-1 V19-1 V22-1 V22-2 V23-1 V23-2 V23-3 V26 1
Load (kN) 64,0 80,8 94,4 123,2 128,4 56,0 134,4 103,2
Force per meter (kN/m) 21,33 26,94 31,47 41,06 42,80 18,67 44,80 34,4
Unit friction (kN/m²) 45,3 57,2 66,8 87,12 90,8 39,6 95,1 73,0
Displacement (mm) 3,30 4,60 6,70 9,30 6,80 0,72 7,50 4,70
These results are presented graphically in figure 15 and annex A.

When testing nails V17-1 and V23-2 failure occurred prematurely. A check of
the injection form showed that injection pressure of nail V17-1 was only 5 bars.
Post-injection of nail V23-2 was carried out immediately after installation, so no
pressure could be built up at the tip of the nail, which also leads to a lack of
compaction of the surrounding soil. This explains the lower service resistance of
these nails. Both nails also have a lower stiffness as compared to the other nails
(see figure 15).
Based on the load-displacement curves for the other nails (see figure 15), it can
be concluded that the behavior of the nails is reproducible for loads smaller than
the service load. Only when a nail approaches its failure load, the behavior starts
to become more diverse. It can also be noted that elongation of the nail quickly
rises above the elongation of the free length + ½ of the fixed length. This means
that the force in the nail is rather quickly transferred towards the tip of the nail.
Both observations and the failure of the nails clearly shows the importance of
the post-injection to attain the specified ultimate failure resistance, especially
when the nails are placed in loose sands.
Figure 15: Tunnel under Antwerp - Test results – Force displacement diagram
5.3. Observations after excavation of some nails

In a second phase, the active railway was shifted towards the already finished
part of the tunnel roof. At this stage, the soil nail reinforced wall was broken up
(see figure 16). This demolition was used to carefully excavate a number of
nails.
5.3.1. Excavated nails and applied measurements

A zone of 4 nails was excavated (see photo 8a and b) partially by hand, and
partially with a small excavator, to minimize damaging the nail. All exposed
nails had a length of 6 m.
The excavation showed that the upper part of the nails was drilled through hard
heterogeneous fill material. The bottom part against the supporting walls was
embedded in moderate homogeneous sands. After exposure of the nails, the
periphery was measured at several distances from the bottom level. With these
measurements, an average diameter for the nail was calculated. Based on the
outer diameter of the reinforcement rod (30 mm), the grout coverage could be
deduced.
The diameter of the nails as a function of the distance from the nail top is shown
in figure 17a and b.
Figure 16: Tunnel under Antwerp - Sub phase 2 – Cross section
Photo 8a: Tunnel under Antwerp - Excavation of nails
Photo 8b: Tunnel under Antwerp - Excavation of nails
Figure 17a: Tunnel under Antwerp - Excavation of nails – Measured Diameters of nails
Figure 17b: Tunnel under Antwerp - Excavation of nails – Shell extent of nails
5.3.2. Observations based on measurements

The photos of the exposed nails are shown in annex B.
Based on the observations during the excavation and the measurements of the
diameter, the nail length can be divided in 3 sections:
A first part of the nail was difficult to expose without damaging the grout.
Measurements of the diameter were not possible. However, during
excavation, it could be noticed that this part of the nail was significantly
smaller than the rest of the nail (see figure B1).
In the second section, the diameter remains fairly constant (see figure B2).
The third section corresponds to the grout plug formed with the final
injection. This plug was very irregular in shape with long branches for 3
exposed nails. One nail showed little difference between section 2 and 3.
Figures B3 to B6 show the different nail tops.
Table 6 summarizes the measured values and soil types for each of the 3
sections.
Table 6: Average nail diameters
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3
Distance to nail top 0 – 2,00m 2,00 – 5,50m 5,50 – 6,00m
Soil Heterogeneous soil Sand Sand
Consistency Dense Moderate Moderate
Diameter 30 – 40mm 70 – 130mm 110 – 260mm
Average diameter - 85mm -
Average grout coverage - 27mm -
Table 5 and Figures 17a and b clearly show that the specified diameters were
nowhere attained in this soil (i.e. 150 mm for a drill bit of 75 mm). With the
final injection, a grout plug was clearly formed in 3 out of 4 cases. The diameter
of these plugs varies from 160 to 260 mm. The size of these plugs can probably
be linked to the consistency of the surrounding soils.
During the excavation, it could also be noted that the grout in section 2 showed
an inner void between the outer limit and reinforcement (see figure B7 and B8).
Cutting of the nail showed the presence of pure water under pressure, even
though the nails were not drilled through a groundwater table.
These observations can be explained by the fact that a W/C-ratio of 1 is too high
to obtain a solid grout body. The high W/C–ratio causes the cement fluid to
become unstable, and as a result, hardening of the grout causes a decantation of
cement particles. The water filling the void in the first phase, has evacuated
through the outer shell of the grout. The cement shell present at the outer limit
of the void, is caused by the cake formation during drilling of the nail. At the
inside of the rebar, a similar decantation occurred, while the water remained
present until cutting of the nail.
To avoid such voids, the use of a W/C-ratio < 0,70 was advised, as noted in
reference [11]. For loose soils, a W/C-ratio of 0,5 is advised for both the drilling
cement fluid as injected cement fluid.
5.4. Conclusion – case study 1

In order to asses the tensile strength of the nails, a number of suitability tests
were carried out.
The results of these tests lead to the conclusion that the installation details for
the realization of the nails are of great importance to the final tensile resistance.
The load displacement curves show that the tensile force is quickly passed on
towards the tip of the nail, which could be a consequence of the grout plug
formed with the post-injection.
When exposing the nails, the diameter of the nails turned out to be relatively
small compared to the grout plug obtained with the final injection, and also, an
expansion factor of 2 for the drill bit is overoptimistic. The form of the grout
plug obtained at the tip of the nail could be linked to the moderate consistency
of the sands near the tip.
Surrounding the reinforcement rods, a hole was systematically present, which
was caused by the use of a non stable cement fluid (W/C=1). To avoid such
voids, a W/C-ratio < 0,5 to 0,7 is advised.
Exposure of the nails allowed a clear observation of the processes which are at
work during installation and testing of the nails. The hereby made observations
led to conclusions regarding installation and design of such type of soil nails.
The tender documents were adapted, including more severe restrictions on the
W/C-ratio of the grout.
6. CASE STUDY 2 : THE USE AND ROLE OF GROUND

ANCHORS AND MICROPILES IN THE VIADUCT
STRUCTURES CROSSING THE COMPRESSIBLE
VALLEYS – OTTIGNIES-SOUTH
6.1. Introduction
The Belgian National Railways Society (SNCB-NMBS) has undertaken the
huge project of developing a Regional Express Network around Brussels (see
figure 18). This project aims to progressively open up Brussels by providing
more efficient public transportation: the train traffic on the main railways
entering Brussels will be intensified and made faster.
In order to meet these objectives, the main railways, basically consisting of two
tracks, need to be broadened to four tracks. One of these railways connects
Brussels to Louvain-la-Neuve. This railway, like most of the Belgian railway
network, was constructed between 1850 and 1900, and crosses the hilly area
South-East of Brussels. The crossing of the alluvial valleys was carried out at
that time by means of high embankments, which were “manually” compacted.
The widening of these fills is very difficult for many reasons:
technical reasons: risks of settlement of the fills, instability of the
embankment slopes
social reasons: many houses or buildings are built close to the embankments,
limiting the possibility of widening without numerous expropriations
financial: the land value in those regions: the project has to stay, as much as
possible, in the limits of the territory already owned by SNCB-NMBS.
An innovative solution had to be developed making use of the available space
between the top and the base of the embankment. The chosen design is a viaduct
structure, founded on micro-piles and leaning against the existing embankments.
Anchors and micro-piles play an important role in this design. The main
principles of this design are described here.
6.2. Geological context

Figure 19a and b represents a typical CPT profile executed from the railway
platform, through the embankment, in an alluvial valley area. It consists of :
One more or less thick layer of filling material constituted of loamy sands or
a mixture of ballasting materials and incineration residues. This layer is
heterogeneous, poorly compacted and potentially prone to settlement under
high loads
One layer of alluvia, poorly or not consolidated
Deep resisting layers : sands, clays or rocky materials
Figure 18:
Plan of regional network project around Brussels
Embankment
Alluvium
Weathered rock
Figure 19a: CPT-test through existing railway embankment in the vicinity of compressive valley
Alluvium
Weathered rock
Figure 19b: CPT-test at the basis of the existing railway embankment in the vicinity of
compressive valley
6.3. Design
The viaduct structure on this main railway, at Ottignies south, is conceived as a
“tunnel in open air”, and consists of 3,4 meters long prefabricated elements of
viaduct, founded on four micro-piles drilled through the embankment and the
alluvial layers and anchored in the rocky, sandy or clayey layers under the
alluvial deposit.
The basic principle of this structure is represented on the cross section in figure
20.
The structure is progressively built “back ahead”, working in consecutive
phases. The elements of this structure are necessary for the stability of the
structure, during construction or in service state. Those elements and their role
are described hereafter:
Berliner retaining wall: In order to be able to build a working platform,
which will become the future foundation of the railway platform, two Berlin
type retaining walls have to be built (see photo 9):
o The wall A, realised in the slope of the embankment, aims to create
the working platform for the execution of the micropiles of the
viaduct.
o The wall B, realised along the existing tracks, aims to retain the
current embankment during earthworks.
In order to realise those walls, HEA soldier piles are placed through the
embankment. The distance between the HEA profiles is 1,7 m for the wall
A, 1,33 m for the Wall B. The sheeting of those walls consists of concrete
flagstone. (see photo 9).
Photo 9: Retaining walls A and B of the viaduct
Figure 20: Typical cross section of viaduct
Helical screw anchors / nails C: During construction, as the excavators have

to ride on the freshly placed platform that immediately can be loaded, wall A
has to be temporarily tied-back in the embankment. To this end, helical
anchors are used: these are actually rods screwed into the soil (see photo 5a).
This technique was chosen because no heardening time of the cement has to
be taken into account and because of its high speed and efficiency of
implementation. It also has the possibility to be unscrewed and reused.
Nevertheless, as no experience with this technique exists in Belgium,
especially in railway application, many trials of installation in a railway
embankment and several pull-out tests have been performed in order to
validate the use of helical nails in this specific context.
Self-drilling nails D: Inclined micro-piles are bored in the railway
embankment, beneath the existing tracks. These nails aim to stabilize wall B
and the embankment during and after construction, and help to transfer the
lateral loads of the viaduct to the embankment.
Self-drilling grouted nails E and F: as the embankment in its present state has
a theoretical safety factor against gliding of about 1,00, micro-piles E and F
are executed in order to increase this safety factor to a value of 1,15 after
construction of the viaduct.
Self-drilling micro-piles G and H: those micro-piles are the real foundations
of the viaduct elements. They transfer the loads to the resisting layers below
the alluvial deposits.
The viaduct elements may then be placed upon these foundations.
6.4. Feasibility trials

In its tender documents, TUC RAIL has decided to allow the use of self-drilling
rods which do not necessarily have a continuous thread along their entire length,
for the vertical micro-piles used as deep foundations of the bridges and for the G
and H micro-piles of the viaduct sections. However, as the smooth tubes are
often used with drill bits that doesn’t have been tested before, the tender
documents required the realisation of preliminary feasibility micro-piles.
The « feasibility » micro-piles have to be excavated after hardening over a depth
of min. 5m, in order to determine:
the optimal drilling parameters (density and quality of the grout, drilling
parameters,…),
the adequate material, fitting with the various soils to be drilled through
(drill bit, centralizers,…), in order to obtain the necessary pile diameter and
thus the grout thickness needed for the protection of the rod against
corrosion.
Those trials have been executed in similar soil conditions than the ones of the
building site. As it was impossible to implement them through the railway
embankment, they were executed close to the base of the fill. The results of
those trials are summarized hereunder.
6.4.1. Drilling parameters and grout conditions

The tests permitted the determination of the optimal parameters in order to
ensure an efficient drilling in the soft to medium soft soil layers. Those are:
Drilling advancement speed : 48 m/h (80 cm/min)
Rotational speed : 120 rpm
The optimal drilling cement fluid has a W/C-ratio of 2. The fine grains present
in alluvial clayey soils mix with the drilling cement fluid, fulfilling in stabilizing
the borehole. In these kinds of soils this ratio gives a good compromise between
fluidity, helping the polluted grouts to be evacuated from the boring hole, and
density, necessary to stabilize the borehole, especially in the railway fill.
The injection cement fluid must have a W/C of 0,5, which permits to ensure a
good replacement of the drilling grout and to make a good coating of the rod.
It is also necessary to regularly move the rods up and down several times in
order to clean the boring hole and so ensure the pile diameter and avoid soil
inclusions into the pile.
6.4.2. Drill bits and spacers

The vertical micro-piles have to be drilled through several different soils, of
very different hardness. The drill bits have to be adapted in consequence.
In case of anchorage into clayey or sandy layers, a drill bit with a cross-shape,
equipped with thin lateral injection channels, gave entire satisfaction (see photo
10)
In case of anchorage into rocky layers (shales) this drill bit has been tested but
was unacceptable. The drilling through the abrasive rock eroded the drill bit (see
photo 11). The drilling speed rapidly decreased and the drilling quickly became
impossible. Moreover, the diameter of the bit was reduced and the pile diameter
was not ensured anymore.
A special designed and reinforced drill bit had to be used. Nevertheless, in order
to drill through the thick embankment and alluvial layers without clogging the
bit, thin metal sheets were perpendicularly welded on the bit. Those sheets are
able to shear the soft soil, and then break with the contact of the rock (see photo
12).
The spacers are necessary to ensure the correct position of the rod in the
borehole, and to create a correct pile diameter. Nevertheless the feasibility tests
revealed that a spacer which is free to move around the rod can cause some
problems:
During the drilling, the spacer moves around the rod and creates kinds of
channels along the borehole surface. By these channels the grout finds an
easy way to break through, towards the soil surface. This leads to a final
helical-shaped pile, with irregular diameter (see photo 13).
A spacer in an inclined oppressed final position may become an obstacle for
the injection grout, leading to uncoated rod areas, just below the spacer (se
photo 14). Under the spaces some soil inclusions occurred.
In order to prevent these problems, TUC RAIL required to weld the spacer on to
the rod couplers (see photo 15) and to rotate with a rotational speed of min 120
rpm, or 1,5 rotations per cm. In this way the helical-shaped pile can be avoid
and the total replacement of the drilling mud, cement fluid mixed with soil
particles, by the injection cement fluid can be more guaranteed.
Photo 10: Cross-shaped drill-bits
Photo 11: Cross-shaped drill-bit eroded by the drilling through hard rocks (on the right)
compared with unused drill bit
Photo 12: Drill bit especially designed for the rock drilling, and furnished with metal sheets to
shear the soft soil layers
Photo 13: Helical-shaped micro-pile, with irregular diameter
Photo 14: Large uncoated area below the centralizer
Photo 15: Centralizers welded on the rod sleeves
7. CONCLUSION
An overview of the practical experiences of TUC RAIL with ground anchors
and micro-piles has been given.
In the vicinity of railways, different design aspects have to be considered. A part
from the calculation of the ground anchors and micro-piles, other design
considerations referring to the feasability of the installations as well as the
different execution details for long term durability of the ground anchors and
micro-piles are taken into account.
Given the importance of the ground anchors and micro-piles for the stability of
the constructions, different tests are done to guarantee the bearing capacity of
the ground anchors or micro-piles. In two case studies, TUC RAIL’s point of
view is presented. In some cases, excavation of the ground anchors or micro-
piles is done, which leads to a greater understanding of the importance of certain
execution details.
8. REFERENCES
[1] Ground Anchors: Overview of types, installation methods and recent trends,
F. De Cock, Proceedings of International Symposium on Ground Anchors,
Brussels, May 2008
[2] Tirants d’Ancrage, Recommandations T.A. 95, Recommandations
concernant la conception, le calcul, l’exécution et le contrôle, Comité Français
de la Mécanique des Sols et des Travaux de Fondations, Editions Eyrolles, ISBN
2-212-01813-4, 1995
[3] Règles Techniques de Conception et de Calcul des Fondations des Ouvrages
de Génie Civil, Fascicule N° 62 – Titre V, Ministère de l’équipement, du
logement et des transports, Circulaire n° 93-66 du 20 décembre 1993,
[4] Execution of Special Geotechnical Work – Ground Anchors, NBN-EN 1537,
maart 2000,
[5] De grondmechanische aspecten bij de aanleg van de HSL in België, W.
Maekelberg e.a., Proceedings of Conference on Geotechnical Aspects for
Important Projects in Belgium – KVIV september 2003
[6] Essai statique de pieu isolé sous charge axiale, L.C.P.C. (Laboratoire
Central des Ponts et Chaussées-France), februari 1989
[7] Subcommittee on Field and Laboratory Testing - Int. Soc. Soil Mechanics
Foundation Engineering - Axial Pile Loading Test part 1: static Loading-
geotechnical Testing - June 85.
[8] Essai statique de tirants d’ancrage, NF P 94-153, AFNOR, Décembre 1993
[9] Praktische ervaringen met nagels met zelfborende stangen voor de HSL-
werken te Berchem, W. Maekelberg e.a., Proceedings of Innovative conference,
11nd Edition, KVIV november 2001
[10] Projet National Clouterre ; Recommandations CLOUTERRE, pour la
conception, le calcul, l’exécution et le contrôle des soutènements réalisés par
clouage des sols, Presses de l’école nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, 1991.
[11] Verankerungen und vernagelungen im grundbau; Wichter, L en Meiniger,
W. ; Bauingenieur-Praxis ; Ernst & Sohn 2000
BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Annex A
1. RESULTS OF PULL OUT TESTS
Figure A.1: Measured values of displacements versus loads
Practical experience of TUC RAIL with ground anchors and micro-piles Annex A - p. 3/5
Maekelberg et al.
Figure 17a: Tunnel under Antwerp - Excavation of nails – Measured Diameters of nails
Maekelberg et al.
Figure 17b: Tunnel under Antwerp - Excavation of nails – Shell extent of nails
Maekelberg et al.
BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Annex B
1. DETAILED PHOTO’S OF EXCAVATED NAILS
Figure B.1: Measured diameters – 1st part of nails
Figure B.2: Measured diameters – 2nd part of nails
Practical experience of TUC RAIL with ground anchors and micro-piles p. 3/6
Maekelberg et al.
Figure B.3: Measured diameters – 3rd part of nail 1 - Nail end
Maekelberg et al.
Maekelberg et al.
Figure B.7: Measured diameters – cavity in nail shell
Figure B.8: Measured diameters – cavity in nail shell
Maekelberg et al.
BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Experience with Ground Anchors of the Federal

Public Buildings Service
Ir. Philippe Debacker

Régie des Bâtiments
The Buildings Agency is an organism of the federal state, which is responsible

for the federal public buildings.
On the one hand, the agency makes studies and builds every year a number of
new buildings, most of the time in an urban environment with all the technical
complications that result from this situation.
On the other hand, the agency also renovates or rebuilds every year a number of
old already existing buildings.
Among the new buildings there are, for instance, the Belgian prisons and
courthouses, the main Brussels museums, office buildings, buildings for the
European Community, all of the European schools, the Belgian buildings for the
international exhibitions in Sevilla, Hannover, Nagoya, Zaragoza and soon in
Shanghai.
Among the old buildings, renovation works have been carried out at the Saint
Michael's cathedral, the arcades of the Jubilee Park, the Palace of Congresses at
the Mont des Arts and even the Lion's Mound on the Hill of Waterloo which has
been consolidated by a whole series of ground anchors.
For all of these works, a good knowledge of the structures is necessary,

regardless if it concerns reinforced concrete, pre-stressed concrete, steel or
wooden structures, stonework and « last but not least » geotechnics. We attach
great importance to the correct dimensions of everything that touches the
ground, like the shallow or deep foundations, the supporting works or the
stability of the slopes, because in the field of geotechnics, every mistake in the
design is unforgivable and the reinforcements that have to be realized afterwards
always require very high costs.
As you might have guessed when mentioning our activities concerning the
buildings in urban environment, it regularly happens that we have to open an
excavation so that we can place one or more lower ground floors.
A first technique (Figure 1) that we use occasionally is that of successive

excavations applying the “stross method” after having concreted the floors, one
after the other on the ground temporarily kept in place. This technique has the
great advantage not to be extended under the adjacent constructions with the
whole problem of unknown obstacles and above all of the authorisations that
need to be obtained. When we last applied this technique of “stross” working,
we would have had to negotiate with a dozen of neighbours. Moreover, this
technique guarantees the blockage on each level of the horizontal movements of
the retaining walls. Because this realization process doesn’t imply the use of
ground anchors, we shall not give any further description.
This leaves us then with the technique that consist of looking in the ground
external to the excavation for the reaction necessary to maintain the retaining
wall.
Experience with ground anchors of the Federal Public Buildings Service– Ph. Debacker p. 3/15
When the floor adjacent to the wall (Figure 2) supports a pavement, a road or
even an average building built on a raft foundation, we are not against the use of
nails combined with a normal wall or even with the technique of guniting
combined with successive excavations. The item of the dimensions of these nails
is nevertheless not relevant for this symposium for two main reasons :
- we can’t distinguish a free length nor a fixed length

- a prestressing force is not applicable to these nails
And this leads us finally to the ground anchors that are the subject of this study
day.
I will give you a description of the way we usually proceed.
During the study that precedes the contracting (Figure 3), we choose the levels
of the different anchoring beds, as a rule ± 1m above the future floors. The
calculation of the wall, which we won’t develop further here, takes into account
the different phases of realization : successive excavations with the
corresponding positions of the anchorages. This way, we obtain for every
anchoring bed a horizontal linear force, expressed in kN/running m (SLS value).
The total quantity of kN thus obtained and expressed in fixed quantities or even
in presumed quantities is the only item of the contract that allows us to pay the
ground anchors. We simply ask the tenderer to commit himself to a unit price : a
certain amount in euros per horizontal kN.
From here, the subcontractor indicated by the awarding Contractor is in charge
of the further dimensioning :
On the basis of this horizontal linear force, this subcontractor chooses:
- the tonnage(s) of his ground anchors
- their angle inclination α
- their free length and their fixed length.
This inclination α is expressed by a cosine α that can highly penalize the

capacity of the anchors. If the geologic configuration allows it, the subcontractor
may choose the shorter ground anchors, but more inclined with shorter fixed
lengths in the good layer, but this may be to the detriment of the horizontal
capacity of each anchor and thus of the total number of anchors.
This whole reasoning is freely carried out by the subcontractor who has to
present to the approval of the Buildings Agency, his realization plans
mentioning, for every anchor, its capacity, its inclination, its free length, its fixed
length and its position on the wall.
He therefore uses the results of the in situ soil tests, executed in sufficient
numbers, preceding the tender. These tests are added to the tender file. These in
situ tests are essentially CPT tests. For buildings designed for the European
Communities, we add frequently PMT tests to simplify the price offerings of
non Belgian contractors.
We think that it’s better to multiply the in situ tests, rather than to take samples
so-called “non reworked” accompanied by tedious and expensive laboratory
tests.
The dimensioning of the fixed length is justified by graphs of the Bustamente

type but nevertheless the subcontractor remains fully responsible.
On the other hand, the dimensions of the free length (Figure 4) is justified by the
application of the Krantz method or by every other similar method.
This whole technical procedure linked to the anchors and the corresponding
contractual aspect are the subject of a standard text for Special Specifications
(Figure 5). This text is integrated in the Standard Specifications n° 904 of the
Buildings Agency in the same way as all the other articles concerning the
structuring elements of a construction.
I hereby seize the opportunity to mention that all the texts of the 904, which are
regularly updated, are available for free on the website of the Buildings Agency.
Under the general title – Prestressed ground anchors – there is, in French and in
Dutch, a text for the temporary ground anchors, the definitive ground anchors
and for the possible preliminary tests.
These articles of the Special Specifications find their origins in old documents of
the Ministry of public Works that have been entirely revised and adapted to the
current practices. The French document TA 95 is the main basis for their
drafting.
A particular attention is paid to the tightening of the ground anchors. I will give
you a brief survey of these Special Specifications (Figure 6) : If TS is the
contractual Service Load of the ground anchor (SLS value), the tightening is
carried out in successive stages until reaching 125% of the Service Load TS.
These stages correspond successively to 12.5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% and
finally 125% of TS. At each stage, the load T is measured in the ground anchor
together with the corresponding lengthening Δ L of the extremity of the
reinforcement of the ground anchor. The stopping time at each stage is limited
to the time which is strictly necessary for taking the measurements.
These couples of values ( Δ L, T) are put into a graph. This graph is filled
up with 2 straight lines passing through the origin. The equation of this two lines
is T = AE ΔL
L
AE represents the steel of the ground anchor. L is equal to the free length for the
first straight line and equal to the free length increased by half of the fixed
length for the second straight line.
All the successive couples ( Δ L, T) must be located between those 2 straight

lines. The broken line that links these points must constitute a regularly
increasing line without any abrupt angular deviations. In this way, it has been
shown that the free and fixed lengths are truly correct and that the tightening of
the anchor bulb is progressively carried out.
The last stage at 125% of TS is maintained during 15 minutes. The ground

anchor is accepted if the lengthening Δ L caused by the settling and measured
between the time t + 3 minutes and t + 15 minutes is inferior or equal to 1,5mm.
This procedure is generally applied on our yards. It allows us to have a

simple but efficient control of each ground anchor.
This has also allowed us to do without the Acceptance Tests that were formerly
executed on a certain number of ground anchors picked by hazard after the
realization of all the ground anchors.
The last problem to deal with is that of the temporary ground anchors and the
definitive ground anchors.
As a rule, we set aside the definitive ground anchors because you can ask
yourself what the importance is of an anti-corrosion guarantee of 10 or even 20
years for a public building designed to last for at least a hundred years. It is
always possible to let the structure of the ground floors take over the ground
pressures which were initially taken over by the ground anchors. When there’s a
great unbalance in the pressures resulting from a highly inclined site, the use of
buttresses is the only reasonable solution (Figure 7).
In this connection, I would like to mention an anecdote that happened to us

twice during the last decennium.
In the Ministry of External Relations in Brussels and later on in the Courthouse

of Liège, we had actually put in place buttresses in order to guarantee the
definitive stability of the high part of the constructions.
Nevertheless, when we were considering to remove the temporary ground
anchors like stipulated in the specifications, certain members of the study team
wondered what the utility was of such an action. Why not leave them in place,
knowing that, in addition, the commissioning authority and the subcontractor
will not be suffering any financial looses doing so. On the contrary, for the same
price, the client obtained at once a belt and straps to take over the ground
pressures.
At that time, some people pointed out the danger of leaving under pressure the
ground anchors which are insufficiently protected against corrosion. These
ground anchors, they said, could break abruptly during the following years and
the heads of the ground anchors could then act like real cannon balls passing
through the open spaces in the lower ground floors. Some people even pretended
they had knowledge of such experiences. This seems at least unlikely because
the corrosion acts slowly on the steel section of the ground anchors. After a
noticeable reduction of this section, the steel weakens and lengthens, the
prestressed strain disappears progressively and all danger is taken away.
If someone in this room has really had knowledge or experienced an accident of

this kind, I would ask him or her to come forward during the Coffee Break so
that we can revise our point of view.
Finally, it’s only after a lot of discussions and hesitations that we definitively
kept this temporary ground anchors under pressure.
A last reflection to finish this presentation.
Here is a picture of the head of a ground anchor, taken on a building site (Figure
8).
How can we justify the lack of horizontal stiffeners between the heads of the
ground anchors while the retaining wall executed in contiguous piles doesn’t
allow the flexion in the horizontal plane? Let’s take into account that there is not
any upper connection cross beam put in place before the beginning of the
excavations.
Under the bearing plate, the pressure on the concrete has to be close to its
maximum allowable value. The vertical component of the load in the ground
anchor that equals TS.sin α , seems only to be equilibrated by the concrete
acting under the lateral section of the steel plate.
The next picture (Figure 9) is another illustration of a construction that, in our

opinion, contains a lot of risks.
But all those things are kept in place and that’s for the better; this is the charm of
geotechnics.
Figure 1- “Stress method”
Figure 2- “Soil nailing”
Figure 3- “Application of Ground Anchors”
Figure 4- “Krantz method”
Figure 5- “Standard text of the Buildings Agency Special Specifications (n° 904)”
Figure 6- “Tightening of the anchors according to the Special Specifications”
Figure 7
Figure 8 – Anchor Head
Figure 9 – Anchor Head
BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Experience with Ground Anchors of the Flemish

Community
Ir. Inge Mariën

Ministry of Flemish Community
Application of ground anchors
in civil constructions
of the Flemish Government
Ir. Inge Mariën

Regional Government of Flanders, Dept. of Mobility and Public Works
Contents
Some of our projects

Most used type of ground anchor for quay walls
Corrosion protection of permanent ground anchors
Ground anchor design
Tests on ground anchors
Some test cases
Ir. Inge Mariën

Some of our projects
Deurganckdock
Embankment renovation
New lock in Evergem
Projects given in concession by the Flemish government
Port of Genk
Ir. Inge Mariën

Deurganckdock
Ir. Inge Mariën

New lock in Evergem
Ir. Inge Mariën

New lock in Evergem
Ir. Inge Mariën

Most used type of ground anchor for quay walls
Task: Construction design life = 100 years

Permanent ground anchors
Pre-stressed (deformations)
Cost (in comparison with pre-stressed bars)
Handling on the construction site
Strand anchors
Ir. Inge Mariën

Task: Construction design life = 100 years

Visual inspection after construction = impossible
Industrial sites
Corrosion protection!
Built-in redundancy
Demand for a solid and continuous
corrosion protection (< NBN EN 1537:2000)
General rule: each part is double protected +
attention to transition zones
Ir. Inge Mariën
Example of double corrosion protection anchor head

Ir. Inge Mariën
Example of double corrosion protection free length

Ir. Inge Mariën
Example of double corrosion protection bond length

Ir. Inge Mariën
Exceptions on the general rule
Test: crack width in grout is limited

→ sheathing & cement grout = 2 protection layers
E.g. deadman anchors → visual inspection
Temporary anchors
Ir. Inge Mariën

Principle:
Failure of one random anchor may not lead
to the failure of the entire construction.
Ir. Inge Mariën

Specified in tender
Working load
Breaking load
Lock-off load
Anchor type (strands / bar)
Spacing anchors
Minimum steel section
Inclination
Start level grout body
(IRS)
Ir. Inge Mariën
Specified by the contractor

Bond length and diameter
Mostly: IGU / IRS
Injection pressure, other working parameters
Ir. Inge Mariën

Tests on pre-stressed ground anchors
Investigation tests: Not for known systems
Suitability tests: In specific cases

Not systematically in each project
Tested until failure
Acceptance tests: Strand anchors:

for each anchor in the construction
Ir. Inge Mariën

Tests on pre-stressed ground anchors
According to DIN 4125

9 Minimum 5 loading and unloading cycles +
determination of creep displacement rate
ks = (s2-s1)/log(t2/t1)
→ more suitable for quay walls with alternating loading
9 Test period suitability test in non-cohesive / cohesive soil
According to informative annex E of NBN EN1537:2000

9 tests less obvious
9 not fully described
Conclusion: The German method is most suitable for

most of our projects.
Ir. Inge Mariën
Some test cases
Suitability tests:
Ground anchors in chalk – bridge in Kanne
Ground anchors for quay walls at the Leie in Kortrijk
Ir. Inge Mariën

4 test anchors
IGU-anchors
Working load = 215 kN
Bond length = 10 m
Suitability test according to
DIN 4125. Extra load levels:
2x, 3x, 3.5x, 4x working
load
Ir. Inge Mariën

Kanne IGU according to DIN 4125: Anchor 1
90
80
70
Low creep
Displacement (mm)
60
50
40
30
20
No failure at 860 kN
10
ks < 2 mm
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Test load (kN)
Ir. Inge Mariën

2 test campaigns:
3 IGU and 6 IRS
Working load = 700 kN
→ Breaking load = 1400 kN
Bond length:
9Anchor 1 IGU = 12 m
9Anchor 2 IGU = 14.5 m
9Anchor 3 IGU = 15 m
9Anchor 3 and 4 IRS = 15 m
9Anchor 5 IRS = 8 m
IRS Anchors 4 and 5: Extra
load levels until 2.25x working
load
Ir. Inge Mariën
Kortrijk IGU according to DIN 4125: Anchor 1
100
90
80
Displacement (mm)
70
60
50
40
30
Failure at
20
10
700 kN
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Test load (kN)
Ir. Inge Mariën

250
200
High creep
Displacement (mm)
150
100
Failure at
50
1400 kN
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Test load (kN)
Ir. Inge Mariën

250
200
High creep
Displacement (mm)
150
100
No failure
50
at 1400 kN
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Test load (kN)
Ir. Inge Mariën

Kortrijk IRS according to DIN 4125: Anchor 3
120
100
Displacement (mm)
80 Low creep
60
40
No failure
20 at 1050 kN
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Test load (kN)
Ir. Inge Mariën

Kortrijk IRS according to T.A.95: Anchor 4
0.25
0.2
0.15
alfa
0.1
0.05 No failure
at 1575 kN
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
T / TP
Ir. Inge Mariën

Kortrijk IRS according to DIN 4125: Anchor 5
180
160
140
Displacement (mm)
120
100
80
60 No failure
40 at 1575 kN
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Test load (kN)
Ir. Inge Mariën

Ir. Inge Mariën
BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Design Guidelines for Non-driven Tension Piles

Underneath under Water Concrete Slabs
- Developments in The Netherlands regarding design, testing and
quality control of vertical ground anchors -
Ir. Ad Vriend
Acécon
Adviesbureau voor funderingstechnieken bv
Dordrecht, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT
In The Netherlands there is no specific guideline available for the design and
testing of vertical ground anchors. In daily practice design engineers often make
use of different standards and guidelines related to inclined ground anchors and
micro piles, but in many cases these documents do not cover all specific design
issues essential for vertical ground anchors or could even lead to wrong
conclusions.
This paper describes the highlights of ongoing studies by the Dutch CUR
committee C152 which is responsible for writing a guideline dedicated to the
design, testing and quality control of vertical ground anchors when applied to
support under water concrete slabs against uplift by water pressures.
It must be emphasized that the studies are still ongoing and consequently values
as presented in this paper are to be interpreted as indicative only as they are still
to be determined by the committee for final use.
INTRODUCTION
During the last 10 to 15 years in The Netherlands there has been a strong and
successful increase of applying vertical ground anchors and micro piles as vertical
tensile elements preventing the uplift of under water concrete slabs in building
pits. Most of these tensile elements are well known and commonly practiced in
the application as inclined anchors to support vertical retaining structures. Most of
the experience in both design and execution rests with specialist contractors that
install these ground anchors. In daily practice this is not a real problem as these
contractors are responsible for their own products and after installation, all of
these anchors are subjected to either suitability tests and/or acceptance tests to
prove their capacity. In case of vertical anchors however this is quite different as
in most projects only a small percentage of these anchors can be tested as it is too
expensive and too time consuming to test them all. How to be sure that these
vertical elements do meet their requirements regarding the bearing capacity and
how can that bearing capacity be calculated anyway?
Another difference between inclined ground anchors and vertical anchors is that
the anchors supporting retaining structures can be pre-stressed after being tested
in order to reduce the expected elongation to an acceptable level. Therefore in
most projects the so called axial stiffness of the applied anchors does not play an
important role and if so, counter measures can be taken by choosing a specified
level of pre-stressing. In case of vertical ground anchors however the axial
stiffness plays quite an important role due to it’s relative strong influence on the
behaviour of and development of tensile stresses in the under water concrete slab
that is being supported by these anchors. At the same time most of these relative
slender anchors and micro piles are quite sensible for elongation due to the
economical drive not to put too much steel into the ground. Unfortunately in most
situations pre-stressing of vertical tensile elements is not a realistic option, so
calculation of the rising of the pile head that can be expected when tensile force is
increasing from zero to it’s maximum level has become a critical aspect in the
Design guidelines for non-driven tension piles underneath under water concrete slabs - Developments in
The Netherlands – A. Vriend – 14.05.2008 p. 3/15
design. The design of vertical tensile elements and under water concrete is
following quite an interactive procedure.
At the moment there is no specific code or guideline that can be referred to for the
design of these piles and because of the essential differences between inclined and
vertical ground anchors as describe above, there is a strong demand both by
independent design engineers and specialist contractors to develop dedicated
recommendations in which design aspects of both bearing capacity and axial
stiffness are described as well as how to deal with in situ testing and quality
control. The Dutch CUR Committee C152 is now working on these
recommendations and in this paper the most important issues regarding design
and testing are highlighted.
3. BEARING CAPACITY OF VERTICAL GROUND ANCHORS

In general Dutch geotechnical design rules for piles both under compression and
tension are based on the use of cpt’s where the bearing capacity is calculated by
multiplying the cpt values with dedicated and prescribed factors to determine the
friction and toe resistance. This method is nowadays also commonly used for
ground anchors, but the values of these (friction) factors are not prescribed. This
leads to a situation in which geotechnical design engineers are using different
values and not surprisingly higher values are commonly proposed by specialist
contractors and lower values by design engineers; more than once this has lead to
intensive discussions between the two parties.
Basically the bearing capacity of a vertical ground anchor and micro pile is
calculated by using the following equation as presented in the Dutch
recommendations CUR 2001-4 “Design rules for tension piles” [1]:
L
Fr ; tension ; max; d = ∫ πφsf 1 f 2αtqc ; red ; ddz (1)
0
where:
Fr;tension;max;d = factored design value of the tension bearing capacity
∅s = diameter of pile shaft or anchor (in case of ground anchors or
micro piles commonly in the range of approximately 150 to 300
mm)
f1 = factor describing the possible positive influence caused by
increased density of the soil layer due to pile installation (in case of
soil displacement piles f1>1.0; in case of anchors f1=1.0)
f2 = factor describing the influence of reduced effective stresses due to
the so called group effect, where piles are positioned with relative
short ctc distances and more or less pulling onto the same sand
particles (depending on ctc distances f2 varies between 1.0 to 0.5 or
even less)
αt = friction factor, different per type of pile or anchor (see below)
qc;red;d = design value for the cone resistance, in which aspects as reduced
effective stresses due to excavation, reduced capacity due to time
depended variation of axial forces as well as a partial material
factor for piles or anchors under tension are taken into account
L = bond length of the pile or anchor
It must be noted that for slender anchors an additional factor describing the
effectiveness of anchors with a relative long bond length should be taken into
account in the equation as presented above. At the moment in the Dutch design
practice there is no commonly used approach for this aspect, and will be assessed
within the C152 committee.
The determination of values for the friction factor αt for tension bearing capacity
of vertical ground anchors and micro piles as most commonly used in The
Netherlands is still in the process of intensive study within the C152 committee,
where numerous available load testing results are assessed.
The following table presents ranges of indicative values that are generally used
in daily practice (final design values are still to be determined by the C152
Committee).
Table 1. Overview of friction values for different types of ground anchors (indicative only)
Type of ground anchor Friction factor
αt (1), (2)
Traditional bored ground anchor with double casing (overburden flush drilling) 1.5 – 2.0 %
Bored ground anchors using one single casing (percussion flush drilling with lost bit) 2.0 – 2.5%
Self boring anchors 1.0 – 1.5%
Screwed ground anchors 1.0 – 1.5%
(1) It must be noted that values could be well less when no (over)pressure is
being built up during grout injection and formation of the fixed bond length;
under good circumstances higher values can also been found.
(2) Applicable for qc values of max 15 – 20 MPa.
It is essential to realize that the above presented types of anchors all have in
common that they are quite sensitive for the method of pile installation. The man
who is operating the anchor rig is the one who can make or brake the end product;
so the bearing capacity strongly depends on the experience and craftsmanship of
the operator. Of course the human factor is not the only factor that determines the
results, as the specific soil conditions on the site also play a very important role.
When still in the process of making the first design it is therefore recommended to
take a sufficiently safe design value for the friction factor αt;d and we are inclined
to propose to use more or less the average of the above presented values,
depending on the specific type of anchor that is being used in the design.
Once a project is approaching the start of the actual pile installation then we
strongly are in favour of steering in the direction of executing in situ pile tests in
order to determine the actual project specific design value. The proposed design
value can then be verified and, in case of testing up to failure, even be optimized.
For larger projects pile testing should always be a part of the process, but when
having a smaller project one could from an economic point of view choose not to
test but to use a relative safe design value in combination with a somewhat higher
partial safety factor. The values of these partial material factors will depend on
the testing regime that is chosen on the job site; at the moment the C152
Committee is studying the values of these factors and will try to follow the
proposals as specified in the Eurocode.
4. AXIAL STIFFNESS OF VERTICAL GROUND ANCHORS
As described in the introduction, the axial stiffness of vertical ground anchors

plays an important role in the design of the under water concrete slab. Different
then when using tension piles with a larger shaft diameter, in case of applying an
relative slender anchor element the axial stiffness could strongly effect the
bending moments and tensile stresses in the under water concrete floor. This
makes it important to develop a reliable design rule for calculating this axial
stiffness.
The C152 committee is still studying how to calculate the axial stiffness, but as
per own experience of the author the following design approach proved to be a
workable method in several large projects.
The axial stiffness can be calculated by using the following equation:
krep = Frep lpilehead (2)
where:
krep = representative value of the axial stiffness
Frep = representative value of the tension force from the under water concrete
acting on the pile
Δpile head = increase in rise of the anchor head caused by Frep
This approach is valid only for tension forces slowly increasing form 0 to the
unfactored Frep, corresponding with the loading of the tension piles during the
process of pumping the water out of the building pit.
The rise of the anchor head is the cumulative result of the following three
contributing risings:
lpilehead = lelastic + lanchorbody + lswelling (3)
where:
lelastic = elastic elongation of the anchor
lanchorbody = rising of the anchor along soil particles during mobilisation of friction
lswelling = rising of lower soil layer(s) below toe level of the anchors due to
swelling
The contribution of the elastic elongation can easily be calculated by using the
following equation:
lelastic = FrepLeff /( EA) anchor (4)
where:
Frep = representative value of the tension force acting on the anchor head
Leff = effective length, determined by the level of the anchor plate in the
under water concrete and the level of the so called fictive anchor point
which lies at approximately 1/2th – 2/3rd of the bond length below the
top level of the anchor body
The contribution by the rising of the anchor along the soil particles during
mobilisation of the friction is basically estimated at approximately 1-1.5 mm
when the anchor body is successfully formed by high pressure grouting, to
approximately 3-5 mm when the anchor body is formed under hydrostatic grout
pressures. This includes possible creep which contribution is supposed to be more
or less of minor importance when compared with all other cumulative
contributions in vertical rising, but it must be noted that the aspect of neglecting
the creep is still being studied at.
The contribution by the swelling of soil layer below toe level of the anchors is
more complicated to calculate, and should be dealt with by an experienced
geotechnical engineer. In the situation of only sand layers below toe level then
this contribution is often neglected, but when having a wide excavation and
having a clay layer below toe level then it can give quite a substantial or even
governing contribution. It must be noted however that swelling of a deeper soil
layer(s) is not only influencing the rise of the anchors but also of the surrounding
retaining walls of the building pit so in the end not the total swelling has to be
taken into account but only a differential part.
Within the C152 committee the study on the contributions in the rising of the
anchor head is ongoing and promising results are expected. Complicated though is
the translation form a single anchor to a group of anchors that are influencing
each other.
5. TESTING OF THE VERTICAL GROUND ANCHORS AND

QUALITY CONTROL
Establishing a realistic framework and requirements for testing of vertical ground

anchors is one of the most important issues within the C152 committee. It is
obvious that testing of piles has great advantages especially when executed well
before the start of actual piling works. Testing strongly increases the reliability
and acceptance of vertical ground anchors as a product, especially when it is
combined with a strict registration of parameters representative for the piling
process enabling a useable tool for in situ quality control.
5.1. Investigation tests

As described in the previous chapter, testing of the vertical ground anchors is
essential for determination of the correct design value for the friction factor αt. It
is favourable to perform pile testing well in advance before starting the execution
of the actual piling project, and to bring these test piles to failure. The results of
the proven ultimate capacity can then be used to optimize the design of the
vertical ground anchors. One disadvantage however is the fact that in most cases
only a relative short fixed bond length can be used in order to be able to bring the
test pile to failure, so it can be questioned if the results are sufficiently
representative when used for longer fixed bond lengths of the actual production
piles.
5.2. Suitability tests

When there is less time and/or money available, pile testing could also be done on
actual production piles without bringing them to failure. The test load should be
such though that it can be proven by back calculation that at least the design value
of αt was mobilised. Disadvantage of performing suitability tests on actual
production piles is that in most cases the subjected piles must be modified by
applying a high capacity tendon to accommodate the relative high test load. This
implies that before the start of the piling works it must be known which piles will
be tested and it can then be questioned whether these piles are still representative.
5.3. Acceptance tests

In order to verify the in situ axial stiffness of the production piles acceptance tests
can be applied. The test piles are subjected to a load of at least the factored design
value of the tensile force Fs;tension;d which is in the order of approximately 1.25 to
1.3 times Frep. Because these piles are designed as group piles, but can only be
tested as single piles, the actual ultimate bearing capacity of such a production
pile will be at least a factor 2 to 3 times higher than Frep, and from such a short
load test no conclusions can be drawn about the bearing capacity of that tested
pile, unless something has gone dramatically wrong during pile installation.
Another difficult aspect that is still studied is the translation of the results of a
single pile to the group of piles, as it is supposed that a pile in a group is having a
somewhat reduced effective axial stiffness.
The C152 committee is now in the process of evaluating and discussing several
testing regimes, but in short the following tests and objectives can be summarized
as presented in the following table.
5.4 Overview of proposed testing in according with EN-1537

Table 2. Overview of proposed anchor load testing in accordance with EN-1537
Type of load test Bearing capacity Axial stiffness Main objective of load test
Investigation test (1) + - optimisation of friction factor
αt;ult;d
Suitability test (2) + - verification of friction factor αt;d
Acceptance test (3) - + verification of axial stiffness krep
(1) Test from existing ground level.
Loading up to failure.
(2) Test from existing ground level.
Loading including compensation of all reduction and material factors.
(3) Test in excavated building pit before pouring the under water concrete.
Loading of production pile to factored design value of tension force.
Testing of vertical ground anchors before the start of the anchor works is not only
important to determine a safe design value for the friction factor, but it also
enables comparison of all items that are relevant for pile installation (grout
injection pressures, volume of injected grout, w/c-factor, type of cement, diameter
drilling bit, diameter bore casing, etc) as registered during installation of the
initial test piles with the actual production piles. By using this information and
following this procedure the quality control can take place during and
immediately after installation of the production piles. In case of doubt over certain
piles, these piles can additionally be subjected to an acceptance test to verify the
load displacement behaviour.
6. CASE STUDY
In the west of The Netherlands as part of a large building pit, more than 700
vertical ground anchors had to be installed in order to prevent uplift of an under
water concrete slab. The vertical ground anchors (Gewi-piles) were installed from
existing ground level using a single casing and percussion flush drilling with a
lost bit. After lowering the tendon into the casing, the fixed bond lengths were
formed by grout injection of at least 5-10 bar and gradual extraction of the casing
at the moment of rapid increase of the torque on the casing which is slowly
turning around during this process.
The relevant specification of the vertical ground anchors and test piles are
presented in figure 1.
Test piles Test piles Pile type Fs;tension;d Gewi bar Diameter anchor Design value friction factor
I, II and III A0, A1, A2 and A3
0.5 m+ 1 1182 kN ∅ 63.5 mm FeB 555/700 ∅s = 200 mm αt = 2.0%
0.5 m- 2.75 m- 2 1326 kN ∅ 63.5 mm FeB 555/700 ∅s = 200 mm αt = 2.0%
3.25 m- 3 1170 kN ∅ 63.5 mm FeB 555/700 ∅s = 200 mm αt = 2.0%
Levels in [m] to NAP

∅ 63.5 mm ∅ 75 mm Pile type 1 Pile type 2 Pile type 3
SAS 670/800 St. 835/1030
10.4 m-
11.6 m- sand 13.5 m-
clay
16.0 m-
17.5 m-
La = 5.0 m sand (dense)

∅s = 200 mm
(water head 0.50 m-)
22.5 m-
23.0 m-
24.0 m-
sand (very dense)

La = 9.0 m
∅s = 200 mm
33.0 m- 33.0 m-
34.75 m-
36.5 m-
Figure 1. Typical cross section
6.1. First series of investigation tests (test piles I, II and III)

For the first series of investigation tests it was chosen to install three piles with
5.0 m fixed bond length in the dense sand layer between 16.0 m- and 23.0 m-
NAP. It was expected that the test pile could be loaded to failure, which was
calculated to occur at a test load of at least 1540 kN (based on the average qc
values between 17.5 m- and 22.5 m- NAP, where qc values were limited to 20
MPa and using an optimized friction factor of αt=2.5%). Actually, based on
comparable load tests in dense sand, failure was expected at approximately 1600
to 1800 kN. By using a Gewi+ bar ∅63.5 mm with steel grade SAS 670/800 as
tendon the maximum test load could be increased up to 1910 kN.
During the process of pile installation,

which took place from a working level of
0.50 m+ NAP and ground water level at
0.50 m- NAP, no problems or deviations
were observed and grouting pressures of 8
to 15 bar were registered.
The loading procedure as applied for

testing piles I, II and III is presented in the
following table.
Table 3. Loading procedure test piles I, II and III

Load Test load Load held
steps constant
Fi 100 kN -
20% 308 kN 20 min
40% 616 kN 20 min
60% 924 kN 30 min
80% 1232 kN 45 min
100% 1540 kN 60 min
Fi 100 kN 30 min
100% 1540 kN 30 min
Increased test load until failure
occurs
110% 1694 kN 30 min
120% 1848 kN 30 min
124% 1910 kN 30 min Figure 2. Representative CPT
Photo 1. Testing of piles
Contrary to the expectations, all three test piles failed in a much too early stage, at
respectively 977 kN, 1355 kN and 1450 kN. The last load steps during which the
test piles were showing a stable behaviour (creep < 2.0 mm) were at 924 kN, and
1232 kN.
This disappointing result turned out to be caused by the characteristics of the sand
particles in the sand layer between 16.0 m- and 23.0 m- NAP in which the fixed
bond lengths were installed. After receiving a representative borehole description
and by doing some further geological investigation it was concluded that this sand
layer was described as Dune sand consisting of fine to very fine and rounded sand
particles. These specific characteristics could not be derived form the original
CPT, and it became clear that the bore hole data and geological information was
needed to determine the characteristics of this particularly sand layer.
The assumed cause for this low bearing zone effected by pile installation
capacity is hidden in the combination of the
installation process and the specific soil
conditions. During the process of pile
installation a relative thin zone around the
anchor
anchor is effected. At first, during boring of body
the anchor, this zone is slightly loosened
and then by forming the fixed bond length
by grout injection with sufficient grouting
pressures the sand particles are compacted sand surrounding anchor
and voids between the sand particles will
partially be filled with cement.
Figure 3. Effected zone around anchor body
In case of coarse and angled sand particles this zone is then brought back to the
original situation or even better, resulting in a high capacity for transferring shear
stresses to the surrounding sands. However, when having fine and rounded sand
particles this behaviour is different as this zone cannot be brought back to the
original situation due to the lower porosity and the lack of angled particles. The
fine rounded sand particles are not able to mobilise the same amount of friction
between the particles.
6.2 Second series of investigation tests (test piles A1, A2 and A3)
The disappointing results of the first three investigation tests have lead to the
decision to install a second series of three test piles, but then with the fixed length
in the deeper and very dense sand layer below 23.0 m- NAP. In order to have
relative long fixed lengths with toe levels as close as possible to the actual Gewi-
piles that were designed for the building pit, much effort was put into finding
special high capacity steel bars (strands were not favourable due to their relative
high strain that would certainly influence the results). The higher the capacity of
the tension bar the longer the fixed length could be, but on the other hand the
fixed length should not be too long because of the need to load these additional
test piles up to failure. This was not an easy task, but the piling contractor was
lucky in finding bars ∅75 with steel grade St. 835/1030. Based on the maximum
acceptable test load of 3320 kN that could be applied on these bars ∅75 mm, it
was decided to install the 2nd series of test piles with 9.0 meter long fixed lengths.
Failure of these test piles was anticipated not to occur before approximately
2900 to 3100 kN. In this way fixed lengths could be created between 24.0 m- and
33.0 m- NAP which was quite close to the designed toe levels of the actual Gewi-
piles in the building pit (see figure 1) and thus as representative as possible.
During the installation of test piles A2 and A3, which now took place at a
somewhat deeper level of 2.75 m- NAP with freatic ground water table at 3.25 m-
NAP (and with a water head in the deeper sand layer below the clay layer at 0.50
m- NAP) the piling contractor encountered new problems as (due to grout
welling) it turned out to be difficult to build up the essential grout injection
pressure when forming the fixed length from 33.0 m- up to 24.0 m- NAP in the
coarse sand. To overcome this problem the piling contractor did not continue with
further installation of test pile A1, but made some additional trial piles first to the
depth of 33.0 m- NAP. After some successful adjustments the pile installation
procedure was improved leading to an increased and acceptable grout injection
(over)pressures of 4 to 5 bars.
The piling contractor then continued with the successful installation of test pile
A1 and an additional 4th test pile A0.
Testing of these 4 piles of the 2nd series went similar to the first series but then up
to a maximum test load of 3300 kN. Results were more or less in accordance with
expectations: A2 and A3 failed too early at respectively 1910 kN and 2640 kN,
where the other two piles A1 and A0 that were installed using the improved
installation procedure showed good stability even when loaded up to 3300 kN
without any indication of nearby failure.
Test pile A1 (grouting pressures > 5 bar) Test pile A2 (no grouting pressures)
Figure 4. Load displacement curves of test piles A1 and A2
After completion of this 2nd series of investigations tests again additional piles
were installed and tested, giving confirmation of the good results of previous test
piles A1 and A0.
6.3. Summary of results investigation tests

Table 4. Overview test results
Test Fixed bond length Expected failure Failure load Last stable Effective shear Comments
piles load load step stress (2), (3)
I 5.0 17.5 m- to 22.5 m- 1600 - 1800 kN 977 kN 924 kN 280 kN/m2 fine rounded sand
II 5.0 17.5 m- to 22.5 m- 1600 - 1800 kN 1355 kN 1232 kN 230 kN/m2 fine rounded sand
III 5.0 17.5 m- to 22.5 m- 1600 - 1800 kN 1450 kN 1232 kN 260 kN/m2 fine rounded sand
A2 9.0 24.0 m- to 33.0 m- 2900 - 3100 kN 1910 kN 1800 kN 310 kN/m2 no grout pressure
A3 9.0 24.0 m- to 33.0 m- 2900 - 3100 kN 2640 kN 2400 kN 290 kN/m2 no grout pressure
A0 9.0 24.0 m- to 33.0 m- 2900 - 3100 kN > 3300 kN 3300 kN 560 kN/m2 grout pressure 4-6 bar
A1 9.0 24.0 m- to 33.0 m- 2900 - 3100 kN > 3300 kN 3300 kN 540 kN/m2 grout pressure 4-6 bar
(1) Diameter pile shaft in calculation ∅s=200 mm (drill bit ∅=180 mm).
(2) Design values effective shear stress based on last stable load step and after taking into
account estimated friction along free anchor length (respectively: 40 kN, 500 kN, 400 kN, -
kN, 730 kN, 100 kN and 220 kN).
(3) Design of Gewi-piles in building pit based on τd = αt qc;limited = 2,0%x15,0MPa= 300 kN/m2.
Despite the somewhat disappointing results of the bearing capacity in the layer
with fine and rounded dune sands, the underlying very dense layer with coarse
sands provided more than sufficient compensation. Ultimately the proven bearing
capacity was higher than required so the designed Gewi-piles could safely be
installed, provided a good quality control for maintaining the adjusted and
improved installation process.
Recently we received information about another project in the same region where
Gewi-piles were installed by a different piling contractor but in similar soil layers,
and remarkably the same conclusions were drawn on the significant difference in
bearing capacity in the fine and rounded dune sands when compared with the
underlying coarse sands. This confirms the influence of the specific characteristics
of the sand particles.
6.4 Acceptance tests on production Gewi-piles after wet excavation of

the building pit
After completion of the excavation of the building pit in total 33 Gewi-piles have
been subjected to an acceptance test in order to verify the axial stiffness of these
piles. The piles were tested from a floating pontoon using an extension bar that
was coupled to the pile head just above excavation level.
For design of the under water concrete the representative value of the axial
stiffness was estimated in the range between 45 – 50 MN/m which was quite well
confirmed by the acceptance tests; most results showed even higher values.
Photo 2. Acceptance test from floating pontoon Photo 3. Building pit after completion
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

- Though the Dutch “design guidelines for non-driven tension piles underneath
under water concrete slabs” is still in the process of development, it is expected
to be welcomed by both the independent design engineers and specialist piling
contractors as it will provide a relative straight forward and clear procedure for
design, testing and quality control when dealing with vertical ground anchors.
- In case of large piling projects the use of the new guideline will lead to the
increase of investigation tests or suitability tests prior to the actual piling works.
This will have the benefit to be able to confirm the bearing capacity of the
vertical ground anchors or even to optimize the pile design.
- As all types of vertical ground anchors have in common to be sensitive for the
experience and craftsmanship of the piling contractor and the operator in
special, another important objective is to have better control over the installation
process in general.
- As shown in the case study, testing also makes it possible to discover unusual
soil conditions, which has the great advantage of being able to deal with this
before the start of the piling project and not when execution is already ongoing
or even finished.
- It can be questioned if the use of CPT’s alone is sufficient for making a reliable
design, as it does not provide essential information about the specific and
essential characteristics of the sand grains.
Borehole data and geological knowledge can provide valuable additional
information, but it will remain indicative only.
- Eventually, testing will be the best option to optimize the pile installation
process for the specific local soil conditions and to determine the final pile
design.
- By comparing the basic pile installation parameters as registered during testing
with these parameters during the execution of the actual piling works, it will be
possible to detect potential defects in an early stage so that actions can be taken
immediately if necessary.
- In case of smaller projects, testing is often leading to unrealistic additional costs,
and more conservative design with the use of higher partial safety factors can be
an economical acceptable alternative.
- By using the procedures as proposed in the recommendations it is expected that

quality and overall safety level of vertical ground anchors will increase, leading
to further successful and reliable application in future projects.
8. REFERENCES
[1] CUR 2001-4; Design rules for tension piles
Civieltechnisch Centrum Uitvoering Research en Regelgeving (CUR); juni
2001
[2] NEN-EN 1537; Execution of special geotechnical work – ground anchors
Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut; December 1999
[3] NEN 6743-1; Calculation method for bearing capacity of pile foundation –
compression piles
Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut; November 2006
[4] NEN 6745-2; Load test on foundation piles – static axial loading in tension
Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut; December 2005
[5] Proceedings of the international symposium on anchors in theory and
practice
Salzburg, Austria; 9-10 October 1995
[6] Proceedings of the international conference Ground anchorages and
anchored structures
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, UK; 20-21 March 1997
BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Experience in France with Ground Anchors
Prof. Jean-Pierre Magnan

LCPC
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
GROUND ANCHORS
BBRI BGGG – GBMS Limelette test field results
14 May 2008
Hotel Métropole – Brussels
Experience in France with

Ground Anchors
J.P. Magnan, LCPC (France)

The French practice is described in
Ground Anchors
Recommendations for
conception, calculation,
execution and testing
RECOMMENDATIONS T.A.95
Previous editions :
1972, 1976, 1986 in French
1989 Balkema in English
Prepared by 37 experienced
engineers (Cambefort, Graux,
Lebelle, Dupeuble, Clément,
Dupeuble, Logeais, … under the
“convenorship” of P. Habib)
180 pages
www.geotechnique.org
The recommendations T.A. 95 cover
1. Introduction
2. Definitions
3. Material specifications
4. Protection against corrosion
5. Execution
6. Testing
7. Periodical control of anchor load
8. Recommendations to the client
A1 Appendix : Stability of retaining structures

A2 Appendix : Verification of the global stability of vertical anchors under
slabs
A3 Appendix : A guide to the preliminary design of anchors
A look into (close) future
Recommendations T.A. 95
• Introduction
• Definitions
• Material specifications EN 1537 Execution of anchors
• Protection against corrosion
• Execution
• Testing EN 22477-5 Testing of anchorages
• Periodical control of anchor load
• Recommendations to the client
A1 Appendix : Stability of retaining

structures EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7 Part 1
A2 Appendix : Verification of the global
stability of vertical anchors under slabs NF P 94-282 Geotechnical design –
Retaining structures – Embedded
A3 Appendix : A guide to the preliminary walls and anchorage
design of anchors
French Standard on Static Anchor testing EN 22477-5 Testing of anchorages

NF P94183 Procedure 3
What is French practice (experience)?
• Given types of passive or prestressed anchors
• Specified types of accepted materials
• Proven ways of insuring protection against corrosion
• A design method based on investigation tests on each
type of anchor in each type of soil
• The execution of suitability tests at the construction site
• The execution of acceptance tests on each anchor
• A preliminary design procedure based on Ménard
pressuremeter tests
• Anchor test procedures based on incremental loading
and interpretation in terms of anchor pull out resistance,
anchor critical resistance and a limited anchor head
displacement
Given types of anchors and material specifications
• Specifications covered by EN 1537.

• Steel tendons, grouted by cement or resins.
• Free length and grouted length: equal protection.
• Protection against corrosion: depends on the aggressiveness of
the ground, include metal or plastic sheaths and ducts, cement
or resin grouts…
• …
Maintained anchor test procedure
Procedure 3 in EN 1537 (and prEN 22477-5)
Load [% PP] Proof loads Pp differ. 60 min

100
60 min
90
60 min
80 2 min
60 min
70
60 min
60
60 min 2 min
50
60 min
40
30 60 min
2 min
8 x 1h
20
Acceptance Suitability Investigation 5 min
10
10+15+5+5+1min 6 x 1h Time [min]
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Proof loads and design parameters
• For investigation tests
Pp ≥1,25 Po or Pp ≥ Ra but Pp ≤ 0,9 Ptk
Po = estimated service load : Ra – resistance (failure)
The tendon section may be adapted to avoir steel failure
• For suitability tests

Pp ≥ γa Pd (EC7, modified)
Pd = design load
• For acceptance tests

Pp ≥1,25 Pserv and Pp ≤ 0,9 Ptk for checking creep
Pp ≥ Pd (EC7, modified)
Basis for design
The design load must be calculated first, from the equilibrium of the
retained structure.
The design load on an anchor must be less than the structural design
resistance of the tendon (see EN 1993-5) and than the design pull out
resistance of the anchor (see NF P 14 282):
Pd ≤ Ra,d/γRd = Ra,k / γRd γa
with
Ra,k = min {Ra,m,mean/ξa1; Ra,m,mean/ξa2).
If Ra,k comes from an investigation test, then γRd =1.
If Ra,k comes from any calculation model, then γRd ≥ 1,4.
For approach 2: γa =1,1 for temporary and permanent anchors.
ξ for n = 1 2 3 4 ≥5
ξa1 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1
ξa2 1,4 1,2 1,05 1 1
In addition, the service load is checked against the creep load obtained from tests.
Preliminary design
The pull out resistance Ra = qsπαsDLs.
IRS IGU
(Selective repeated injection) (Unique global injection)
αs qs αs qs
Gravel 1,8 1,3 - 1,4

Sandy gravel 1,6 - 1,8 0,1pLM + 0,05 1,2 - 1,4 0,1pLM
Gravelly sand 1,5 - 1,6 1,2 - 1,3
Coarse, medium, fine, silty sands
1,4 - 1,5 0,1pLM + 0,05 1,1 - 1,2 0,1 pLM
Silt 1,4 - 1,6 0,08pLM + 0,10 1,1 - 1,2 0,06pLM+0,04

Clay 1,8 - 2,0 1,2
Marl, marly-limestone and weathered or fragmented chalk

1,8 0,07pLM + 0,13 1,1 - 1,2 0,05pLM+0,1
Weathered or fragmented rock

1,2 0,12pLM+ 0,08 1,1 0,1pLM+ 0,0
Conclusion
• Our intention in France is to adopt design approach 2 for

the design of retaining structures and anchorages and
test procedure 3 for testing anchorages.
• In case design approach 3 is used, a model factor on the
resistance has to be introduced.
BBRI BGGG – GBMS

Application of Ground Anchors, Nails and

Tension Piles in Europe and Current Status of
EN 1537 - Ground Anchors
Dr.-Ing. Wolf-R. Linder

Brückner Grundbau GmbH, Essen, Germany
Chairman CEN/TC 288
Dr Caesar M. Merrifield
Coffey Geotechnics Limited, Manchester, United Kingdom
Chairman CEN/TC 288/WG 13
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Programme of European Geotechnical Standards
Work on the “Eurocodes” started in 1979 with the objective of developing European
design standards using the principle of partial safety factors and aiming at harmonizing
design approaches in Europe for the replacement of existing national standards which
were commonly using global safety factor approaches. Work was intensified after re-
lease by the European Commission of the Construction Products Directive (CPD) in
1988 which also necessitated European standardization of materials, building products,
construction methods and testing. For coordination and supervision of European stan-
dardization the European Standards Committee (CEN) was established which commis-
sioned the Technical Committee CEN/TC 250 to continue work on the Eurocodes. The
provisional time schedule aimed at their publication and introduction already in 1993
and 1996, respectively.
For geotechnical design and construction, the original programme foresaw four different
standard packages to be dealt with by the Sub Committee SC 7:
- EC 7-1: Geotechnical design,
- EC 7-2: Laboratory testing,
- EC 7-3: Field testing and
- EC 7-4: Geotechnical construction.
Taking account of the great range of the subjects and realizing that only a comprehen-
sive system of standards could be fully functional, the workload was later split between
CEN/TC 250 SC7 and two new TC’s:
CEN/TC 250 SC7: EN 1997-1: Geotechnical design - general rules and
EN 1997-2: Geotechnical design - ground investigation and testing;
CEN/TC 288: Geotechnical construction standards (“Execution of special geo-
technical work”), established 1991 and
CEN/TC 341: Ground investigation and testing, established 2000.
Scope of CEN/TC341 working groups (WG) is the development of standards for:
- identification and classification of soil and rock,
- drilling and sampling methods and groundwater measurement (WG 1),
- cone penetration tests (WG 2),
- dynamic probing (WG 3),
- testing of geotechnical structures (WG 4) and
- borehole expansion tests (WG 5).
Whilst the work of the other WG’s is running smoothly, that of WG 4 was initially
sometimes controversial because of the different nature of subjects addressed in the
standard. Testing of piles is an issue not directly connected to the execution of piles:
Testing of prestressed ground anchors is however an integral part of the execution and
an execution standard for anchors remains incomplete unless it contains respective pro-
visions or is complemented by a testing standard available simultaneously.
Application of Ground Anchors and Status of EN 1537– Linder/Merrifield – 14.05.2008 p. 3/17

A summary of the most important geotechnical design, execution and testing standards
is given in Table 1.
Table 1: Special foundation engineering Standards: status
Com- En- Formal EN

Standard Start Notes
mittee quiry Vote Ratific.
EN 1536 confirmed: 2002

1992 1995 1997 2000
Bored Piles Systematic Review until 2010
1992 1996 1997 1999
Ground Anchors Systematic Review until 2011
1992 1996 1997 1999
Diaphragm Walls Systematic Review until 2010
1993 1997 1998 1999
Sheet Piles next Systematic Review: 2010
1994 1998 2000 2000
Displacement Piles next Systematic Review: 2010
1994 1998 2000 2000
Grouting next Systematic Review: 2010
CEN EN 12716 confirmed: 2006
1994 1998 2001 2001
TC288 Jet Grouting next Systematic Review: 2011
EN 14199
1996 2002 2004 2005 first Systematic Review: 2011
Micro-Piles
EN 14475
1997 2002 2005 2006 First Systematic Review: 2011
Reinforced Fills
EN 14490 2002 final draft for Formal Voting
1997 2009 2010
Soil Nailing 2007 being prepared
EN 14679
Deep Mixing
EN 15237
1999 2006 2007 first Systematic Review: 2012
Vertical Drains 2005
EN14731
Deep Vibration
CEN EN 22477-1
final draft for Formal Voting
TC 341 Piles: Static axial 2001 2006 2009 2010
being prepared
WG 4 compression testing
EN 22477-5 final draft for Formal Voting
2001 2005 2009 2010
Testing of anchors being prepared
EN 22477-6
2001 ? ? work interrupted
Testing of nails
CEN EN 1997-1
TC 250 Geotechn. Design: <1990 2004 2005 first Systematic Review: 2010
SC 7 General rules
EN 1997-2
Ground investiga- 2000 2005 2006 2007 first Systematic Review: 2012
tion and testing
Years in italics: anticipated or target dates
1.2 Drafting and Presentation of European Standards

European standards are mostly drawn up in English and are published in the three offi-
cial languages of CEN, namely English, French and German, which are to be identical,
especially regarding format, formulations and degrees of obligation of individual provi-
sions.

CEN has prescribed strict rules for all parts of its standards including the presentation,
figures, tables and the wording. The rules are contained in Internal Directives (CEN
CENELEC (2006) “Internal Regulations Part 3”) and are identical for all CEN and ISO
standards. The Standards distinguish between Requirements, Recommendations, Per-
missions, Possibilities or just Notes and respective wordings are prescribed. It must be
kept in mind that common understanding and use of the language can deviate from the
standardized formulations. This fact is of particular importance for the application of
European Standards in different countries.
Similar strict and formal requirements including procedures and time schedules are in
place for the application for new works items for standardization, for the formation of
Technical Committees, the drafting process and the presentation of draft standards for
Enquiry, Formal Voting and Standard Review procedures.
Member Bodies (MB) of CEN are the national standards institutions, e.g. AFNOR, IBN,
NEN, BSI, DIN etc. Decisions regarding the acceptance of a new Work Item (WI), on
acceptance of a draft to become a EN-Standard through Formal Voting (FV) or for the
Systematic Review are taken by “double majority-voting” of MB’s, i.e. requiring the
single majority plus the 71 % weighted majority of MB’s voting. The latter reflects to
some extend the population of individual countries but is much in favour of smaller
countries.
1.3 National Application Documents (NAD)

Legal and statutory requirements and conditions are different throughout Europe as are
technical traditions, experience, education and the role of the parties involved in con-
struction. Apart from relatively simple cases (like pure material standards), national
differences will remain for some time. European standards should therefore rather de-
fine generally acceptable principles and requirements as common denominators than
requirements that might not be acceptable throughout. They should leave room for na-
tional deviations as necessary, however establishing conditions for such permissions.
Examples are the permission of reduced material testing requirements provided appro-
priate quality control systems are nationally specified (EN 1536) or different testing
procedures for ground anchors (EN 1537 and EN 22477-5).
The individual member countries are to check and provide for each individual standard
and how it is matched with the respective national conditions. Normally a short na-
tional foreword or national appendix (NA) should be sufficient. More complicated is-
sues can however require National Application Documents (NAD) for making a Euro-
pean standard operational.
1.4 General status of TC 288 Standards

Most standards on the work items defined by CEN/TC 250/SC7, TC 288 and TC
341/WG4 are completed and published both Europe-wide and nationally (see Table 1).
The “creation phase” is basically completed. During a “consolidation phase”, the stan-
dards should gradually be improved and be harmonized within the “family” of geotech-
nical standards and with other reference standards. The periodic Systematic Review
procedures are to be used for this purpose and main objectives should be as follows:

• Gaining experience and making the standards operational with a minimum of

NAD’s,
• Amending or making corrections as necessary,
• Condensing of standards (i.e. shortening), harmonisation of structure, terminology,
definitions and providing similar layout, “depth” and appearance,
• Calibrating different language versions,
• Harmonisation with design, testing (e.g. anchors) and material standards (e.g. con-
crete, precast piles).
2. GROUND ANCHORS – NAILS – TENSION PILES

2.1 Basic Differences
For the introduction of tensile forces into the ground, prestressed ground anchors are
used as actively loaded elements. Non-prestressed anchors, nails or tension micro piles
are passive elements on which the tensile forces develop as the result of earth and water
pressures and are typically connected with larger displacements. The main parts of an-
chors, nails and tension micro piles and their respective principle load transfer are de-
fined in Figures 1 and 2 (after EN 1537 and EN 14199).
4
P
τ
8
Figure 1: Elements of a pre-stressed ground anchor (from EN 1537) and load transfer

Figure 2: Elements of a permanent soil nail (from EN 14490) and load transfer; tension
micro piles act similar to nails
2.2 Context of Design, Execution and Testing Standards

The different types of ground anchors, nails and tension micro piles and their coverage
in existing and planned European standards are listed in Table 2. The context of the
standards within the European standard system is shown in Figure 3 illustrating the im-
portance of the integrated approach and harmonization during the drafting and review
processes.
Table 2: Anchors, nails and tension micro piles covered by European standards
Type of Anchorage European Standard
Execution Testing Design

(CEN/TC 288) (CEN/TC 341) (CEN/TC 288)
Prestressed grouted anchor EN 22477-5
EN 1537
Grouted anchor n.a.
Non Deadman anchor n.a. n.a. EN 1997-1
prestressed Screw anchor Cl. 8 & 9.7
n.a. n.a.
anchors
Rock bolt n.a. n.a.
Expander anchor n.a. n.a.
Nails EN 14490 EN 22477-6 EN 1997-1
(planned) Cl. 9.7
Tension micro piles EN 14199 EN 22477-2 EN 1997-1
(planned) Cl. 7.6.3 & 10.2
n.a. = not applicable

EN 1997-2: Ground invest. and testing

National Application Document (NAD)
EN 1997-1: Geotechnical Design, Cl. 8

National Application Document (NAD)
Harmonisation
EN 1537: Ground Anchors EN 22477-5: Testing of Achors

National Application Document National Application Document
EN XXX: Steel, …
National Application Document
EN YYY: Grout, …
National Application Document
Figure 3: Context of execution, design and testing standards for ground anchors
3. SCOPE OF EN1537 – GROUND ANCHORS

3.1 Anchors included in the standard.
The standard EN1537 currently applies to the installation, testing, durability and moni-
toring of ground anchors where the load capacity of each anchor is tested. The standard
also considers matters which should be taken into account into the design of anchors as
part of a larger structural system. An annex (Annex D) which is an informative annex,
provides more specific recommendations for the design of anchor capacity. Essentially
the standard was developed in order to provide guidance on the “execution" or the in-
stallation, testing and subsequent monitoring and maintenance of the anchor elements.
At the time of development it was generally felt that the provision of design guidelines
in EC7, Chapter 8, did not fulfil the needs of those who would be using the European
standard initially.
The scope of the anchors covered in the standard is quite explicit. It is also widely be-
lieved that the scope should be better defined, only including anchors which are post-
tensioned and which have a free length. This certainly excludes alternative anchor solu-
tions such as tension piles, screw anchors, mechanical anchors, soil nails, expander an-
chors or deadman anchors.

3.2 Elements of anchor recognised by the Standard

To reinforce the definition of the anchor the standard recognises that it consists of an
anchor head, a free anchor length and a fixed anchor length which is bonded to the
ground by grout. It should be noted, however, that the standard is indiscriminate in its
definition of the term "ground" which is taken to encompass both soil and rock.
It is not in the scope of this paper to discuss the roles of the fixed and free lengths in the
overall behaviour of ground anchors other than to say that the structural characteristics
of an anchor as defined in the standard suggest that the mechanisms of load transfer and
serviceability behaviour differ materially from other types of anchors which are not rep-
resented in the standard.
The standard highlights the importance of the anchor head in that this is the primary
load transfer element to the anchored system. The behaviour of the anchor as a load
transfer element is dependent upon two main characteristics of the anchor head. These
are; a) the ability of the head to maintain a load and, if necessary, to allow the anchor to
be restressed at some time in its working life and b) the ability of the anchor head to
resist wakening due to material degradation through corrosion.
Figure 4 (taken from EN 1537, as is Figure 1) shows schematically the elements of an

anchor as defined in the standard. This figure includes more detail than that which is
required to define an anchor in terms of the standard.
Key
1 Anchorage point at jack during stressing 6 Soil/rock
2 Anchorage point at anchor head in service 7 Borehole
3 Bearing plate 8 Debonding sleeve
4 Load transfer block 9 Tendon
5 Structural element 10 Grout body in fixed length
Figure 4: Schematic representation of an anchor (EN 1537: 1999)

3.3 Temporary and Permanent Anchors

The standard state explicitly that it covers both temporary and permanent anchors. It
goes on to define temporary anchors as those which have a design life of less than two
years. A number of National Standards (e.g. DIN4125) accommodate anchors which
may be defined as temporary anchors with extended design lives. This may include an-
chors which are required to be in service for up to five years.
The standard is rigorous in this definition for reasons of safety, both to that of the integ-
rity of the anchors and consequently the overall structures and also of third parties using
and maintaining the structures in question. Opinion is divided on the necessity for this
rigid definition and it has been suggested that a third definition of design life should be
promoted – that of extended temporary anchor. This, in essence would provide a
mechanism to provide design and execution guidance on a broader range of anchor uses.
With the development of more and more complex deep basement solutions to high rise
buildings and the extension of time required for the temporary works to be effective, the
application of extended temporary anchors to these solutions may well result in faster,
cheaper and less disruptive construction solutions to be applied in innovative designs.
4. PHILOSOPHY OF ANCHOR EXECUTION

4.1 Integrated nature of design, installation, testing and
monitoring
The successful implementation of a ground anchor solution relies on an integrated ap-
proach to the design, installation, testing and eventual in-service condition monitoring
of the system. Anchor solutions are unique in that each and every working anchor is
subjected to an acceptance test to ensure that it conforms to the design criteria. The
elegance of approach which requires validation of material behaviour, design confor-
mity and eventual serviceability checks, results in good engineered solutions.
Incorporated within EN 1537 is an approach, regarded as industry standard across

Europe and, indeed, internationally, which has been tested successfully over a number
of years. Notwithstanding modest differences in the approach to design across Europe,
the adoption of the limit state approach in EN 1537, based on the behaviour of the ten-
don, is rational and results in designs which have been shown to be not dissimilar to
those obtained using national standards.
4.2 Design basis for anchors

The basis of design was highlighted by Merrifield et al (1997) and has seen limited use
in a number of countries in Europe for the last ten years. Based on the limit state design
approach, the recommendations in EN 1537 were complied with a view to simplifying
the understanding of the design process. The ultimate limit state design demonstrates
equilibrium of the design values of actions acting on a structure and the design resis-
tance of the structure in every possible design situation. The serviceability limit state,
however, is associated with proving that deformations and displacements of a structure
using characteristic values of actions and material properties are acceptable. Inevitably
specialist anchor contractors have continued to evaluate the capacity of their own an-

chor fixed length designs using the most appropriate equilibrium analyses. (Merrifield
et al, 1997).
The recommendations in the design are predicated on the fact that the behaviour of the
high tensile steel tendon within an anchor is the most about which is known at the time
of design, and therefore this is the element upon which the design is based.
EN 1537 requires that design and verification of anchored structures at serviceability

limit state should be executed by checking appropriate design situations using character-
istic values of actions, ground properties and geometrical data. This is given in Annex D
of EN 1537. The standard then refers the designer to clause 2.4.6 .of ENV 1997-1:1994
which addresses the limits of allowable displacement and deformation of the structure
and the ground adjacent to anchored structures. The tolerance of supported structures to
displacement and distortion should also be considered.
Likewise EN 1537 requires verification that the design value of the effect of stabilising
actions is at least or greater than the design value of the effect of the destabilising ac-
tions on the anchored structure. For example, when considering a limit state of rupture
or excessive deformation of a section, anchor or connection, the following should be
verified:
Ed ≤ Rd
where
Ed is the design value of the effect of actions, such as anchor force;
Rd is the corresponding design resistance, associating all structural properties
with the respective design values.
This simplified process is then followed when considering either a limit state of rupture
or excessive deformation of a section (i.e. tendon) safe in the assumption that Rd is con-
siderably lower than either the characteristic internal or external anchor resistance (i.e.
the tendon tensile strength Rik or the grout/ ground bond strength, Rak , respectively). In
fact EN 1537 requires that;-
Rk
Rd =
γR
where
γR = 1.35.
Furthermore the anchor lock-off load P0 should be no greater than 0.60Ptk, the charac-
teristic load capacity of the tendon.
By following these guidelines, the designer ensures that the anchor, as a stressed ele-
ment providing load transfer between the structure and the surrounding soil, should
never be loaded to a condition which would compromise the behaviour of the anchor.

4.3 Harmonisation within different European approval

systems
The harmonisation of the National Standards into a single European Standard has been
undertaken in accordance with CEN/CENELEC (2006). These regulations are designed
to allow the constitution of working groups comprising national experts, whilst main-
taining their understanding and awareness of their own national positions, they have the
right to act in a personal capacity in the working group. They, therefore, provide expert
knowledge and experience in compiling a well-balanced and considered standard which
may be used throughout Europe without prejudice.
The harmonisation process for EN 1537 and its subsequent revisions necessitate interac-
tion with other TC 288 standards and Eurocodes to ensure harmonisation of terminol-
ogy, symbols and, in some cases, basis of execution and design. The harmonisation
process should also be sensitive to the current legal systems prevailing in each sover-
eign state within the CEN area. In some countries the design and installation of anchors
is subject to a greater approval application regime by regulatory authorities than in oth-
ers. The standard should be cognisant of the differences in the regulatory and legal sys-
tems across Europe.
4.4 Principles of testing

4.4.1 Stress testing
Anchors are unique in the context of ground improvement elements, in that each work-
ing anchor should be subjected to a load acceptance test. EN 1537, in fact, requires
each working anchor to be subjected to an acceptance test. This is the case in the vast
majority of European and international standards. EN 1537, Clause 9, Testing Supervi-
sion and Monitoring, sets out three classes of stress testing;-
• Investigation tests
• Suitability tests
• Acceptance tests.
Each category of test above has a different set of objectives. The first two may be re-
garded as subdivisions of the general category of assessment tests as defined in
EN 1997-2.
The investigation tests have been designed to allow the designer to establish the load
resistance of the proposed anchors in relation tot the ground and the materials used in
the anchor itself. These tests may also be used to evaluate the competence of the pro-
posed contractor. Essentially these tests are undertaken to failure or the equivalent
thereof.
The suitability tests were designed to allow a greater understanding of the creep or load
loss characteristics at proof and lock-off load levels and to provide an indication of the
apparent free length of the anchor.
The objectives of the acceptance tests on each and every working anchor are to measure
the performance under working load conditions thus providing the designer and contrac-

tor with the assurance that both the design and installation processes have resulted in an
anchor which is fit for purpose in accordance with the standard.
The current standard does not prescribe a load or stress test method to be applied for any
of the test categories above, but provides examples of three methods which are deemed
to be acceptable. The inclusion of these methods is a consequence of the recognition
that each is favoured traditionally in different parts of Europe. In the interests of one of
the principles of harmonisation – that no current practice, which is deemed to be accept-
able, is to be discriminated against in the harmonisation process – they were incorpo-
rated into the standard as an informative annex.
4.4.2 Durability testing

EN 1537, Clause 6, Materials and Products, highlights the importance of material com-
patibility and whole life durability. The clause considers each component in turn draw-
ing the designer’s attention to the hazards associated with the loss of durability during
the working life of the anchor. The necessity to protect the high tensile steel anchor
tendon against corrosion is strongly reinforced, requiring stringent standards of protec-
tion to be applied. Whilst the principles of corrosion protection are the same for all
parts of the anchor, the standard recognises that different detailed treatments are re-
quired for the bond length, the free length and the head.
Case studies have shown that corrosion at the head and in particular where the tendon is
restrained, is particularly severe and very often the area which suffers the most degrada-
tion due to corrosion.
As in the case of stress testing, the practice of designing and determining adequate an-
chor durability varies across Europe. For this reason the minimum corrosion protection
requirement for a permanent anchor tendon or tendon has been articulated as “a single
continuous layer of corrosion preventive material which does not degrade during the
design life of the anchor. “ This requirement is to be either verified by an appropriate
test, or the anchor is to be provided with a sacrificial layer of corrosion protection,
hence ensuring the integrity of a single layer insitu.
The standard provides details in informative annexes of systems tests to determine the
adequacy of corrosion protection. These are i) the electrical resistance test of anchors
insitu and under stress and ii) a laboratory based gun barrel systems test, again to check
for any protection damage under stress.
Discussion at the recent international conference on ground anchorages and anchored

structures in service (2007) (to be published) underlined the difficulty the industry was
having in the implementation of the electrical resistance method in the determination of
acceptable corrosion protection. The reliability of the results was called into question,
given the dependence of the system on climatic conditions.
4.5 Monitoring and maintenance

The routine monitoring and maintenance of working anchors, especially for those over
30 years old that may have been designed with corrosion protection considered inferior
or inadequate by today’s standards, is a matter of great concern. Routine programmes
of inspection and monitoring, where satisfactory condition and service performance can

be confirmed, can extend the service life of anchored structures, such as post-tensioned
dams, dry docks, bridges, sports stadia and multi-storey buildings etc which represent
key elements of a country’s infrastructure. (Littlejohn and Mothersille, 2007).
EN 1537 provides a modicum of guidance on monitoring and the level of records that
should be retained. Very little is said on the necessity for regular maintenance. This
may be seen as a disadvantage to the use of an anchored solution. Records show, how-
ever, that even very large structures such as dams, high buildings and steep slopes
which, in the event of failure could cause dramatic loss of life and assets, are monitored
and maintained on a regular basis as part of the whole life asset management cycle.
Many examples of long term monitoring and maintenance and the current practices in
both European and other countries, such as South Africa, Australia and the USA are
recorded in the proceedings of the recent international conference on ground anchorages
and anchored structures in service (2007).
5. EXAMPLES OF FAILURES DUE TO LACK OF

ANCHOR DURABILITY
The following plates illustrate the consequences of insufficient monitoring or anchor
elements which were inadequately corrosion protected in the context of the standard
today, courtesy of Dr Devon Mothersille, Geoserve Global Ltd.
Plate 1
Severely corroded anchor head
showing deterioration of bearing
plate and barrel loss due to strand
slippage after 37 years service
Plate 2:
Heavily corroded anchor having
sustained tendon failure after 28
years in service in a marine envi-
ronment in the UK

Plate 3:
Anchor head after removal of cap
showing corroded barrels and
remnant grease after 30 years in
service
There are a number of examples of anchors in service which have failed as a

consequence of corrosion. Many of these cases could have been avoided if a co-
herent and reliable monitoring and maintenance regime had been established at
the time of installation. Construction records are also useful in the forensic
analysis of future anchor behaviour. These include grout pressures, volume grout
take and stressing records.
6. REVISION OF EN 1537 – EXECUTION OF SPECIAL

GEOTECHNICAL WORK – GROUND ANCHORS
6.1 Basis of revision
The revision of EN 1537 is being undertaken by CEN/TC288/WG14 under the
authority of TC288. The working group will draft the document in accordance
with the work specifications, guidelines and time schedule provided by TC288
and in accordance with CEN drafting rules. As an individual expert, each mem-
ber of the working group maintains his/her understanding and awareness of their
own national position by being in contact with the national delegation to TC288
and with related standardization activities within the National Standards Body of
their home country.
The working group is currently assessing the comments received through the
national enquiries and resolving issues associated with these comments. In each
case the comments are being considered and incorporated within the draft revi-
sion, where appropriate.
CEN recognises the importance of maintaining the right balance between the
different interests when appointing experts to ensure that the breadth of technical
and user expertise is obtained and to ensure that no interest group has a dominat-
ing position. This is the case with respect to CEN/TC288/WG14.

6.2 Separation of testing and design

The current revision of EN 1537 involves the redistribution of two elements
which formed part of the original standard into other standards. These are;-
a) the methods of anchor stress testing in Annex E. These are to be incorporated
into EN ISO 22477-5 currently being drafted by CEN/TC341/WG3
b) anchor design which will be incorporated into EC7.
Appropriate reference to these matters will be made in the revised EN 1537 but
the substantive text on these matters will reside in the standards into which these
topics will be placed.
General agreement exists between the working groups drafting EN 1537, EN

ISO 22477-5 and the maintenance group responsible for EC7, that the transfer
and subsequent issues of compatibility will be managed with appropriate care.
6.3 New developments

Whilst the revision of the current EN 1537 requires analysis of incompatibility
across Europe, issues raised by National Bodies and the general improvement of
text and understanding raised in the deliberations of the working group, there is
the belief that the standard should address developments in anchor technology
which have manifested themselves since the initial draft. Developments which
should certainly be considered are the emergence of the single bore multiple
anchor and the various designs of removable anchor.
Developments are being made in remote condition monitoring or non-destructive

integrity testing, both in Europe and other countries such as Japan (Ivanović et
al, 2007; Tanaka et al, 2007). The revised draft should also be so constructed to
allow such developments to be incorporated if and when they are validated and
considered sufficiently reliable for constant use on site.
6.4 Current status of EN 1537 revision

An inaugural meeting of CEN/TC288/WG14 was held in Manchester, UK on
14th and 15th April, 2008. The working group meets again in Munich on 19th
and 20th June, 2008. The programme of revision is established and the working
group is confident that the work will be finished in time for the TC288 meeting
in June, 2009, at which time a decision to start the enquiry will be made.

7. REFERENCES
CEN CENELEC, (2006) “Internal Regulations Part 3: Rules for the structure
and drafting of CEN/CENELEC Publications”, Brussels.
Ivanović A., Neilson R., Starkey A., and Rodger A. (2007) “Common anchorage
issues addressed by numerical modelling”. pp209-219, Proc. International Con-
ference on Ground Anchorages and Anchored Structures in Service, ICE, Lon-
don.
Littlejohn, S & Mothersille, D (2007)” Maintenance testing and service behav-

iour monitoring of permanent ground anchorages”. Keynote Presentation, Proc.
International Conference on Ground Anchorages and Anchored Structures in
Service, ICE, London.
Merrifield C., Barley A., Von Matt U. (1997) “The execution of ground anchor
works: The European Standard prEN1537”. pp492-502, Proc. International
Conference on Ground Anchorages and Anchored Structures, ICE, London.
Tanaka K., Okada H. and Izakura M. (2007) “The development of the method of
detecting the anchor tensile force to impact elastic wave”. pp238-249, Proc. In-
ternational Conference on Ground Anchorages and Anchored Structures in Ser-
vice, ICE, London.
Whitworth, M and Parrish, S (2007) “Long term monitoring and routine main-
tenance of ground anchorages at Devonport Royal Dockyard, Plymouth UK”
pp63-71, Proc. International Conference on Ground Anchorages and Anchored
Structures in Service, ICE, London.

CSTC Essais Micropieux Limelette PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CSTC Essais Micropieux Limelette PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROCEEDINGS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

BGGG - GBMS BBRI

The organization committee

SYMPOSIUM ORGANISING COMMITTEE

Ir. C. Bauduin (Besix & University of Brussels VUB)

for the financial support of the research project on Ground Anchors:

for the project elaboration:

International Symposium 14 May 2008

General Framework and Viewpoint with regard

Prof. Ir Jan Maertens

2. EUROPEAN STANDARDS EXECUTION OF SPECIAL

Chapter 3 : Terms, definitions and symbols:

Chapter 9.7. acceptance test:

2.2. EN 14199 – 2003 : Micropiles

Chapter 3 : Terms and definitions

Chapter 9 : Micropile testing

2.3. prEN 14490 : Soil nailing

Chapter 3 : Terms and definitions

Chapter 9 : Supervision, testing and monitoring

3. GROUND ANCHORS IN BELGIAN DAILY

a) Anchors with tendon elements of high strength steel (= mostly strands):

- Testing: almost always , cfr. comment

- Prestressing : always till 0,8 à 1,0 x SL.

- Prestressing : not possible.

The major problem with ground anchors in Belgium is that actually:

a) Prestressed ground anchors :

b) Passive ground anchors:

- the number of tests to be performed has to be clearly specified in the tender

4.3. Control tests

a) Prestressed ground anchors:

- suitability tests on working anchors?? (= not foreseen in EC7)

b) Passive ground anchors:

International Symposium 14 May 2008

Ground Anchors : Overview of Types,

Ir. Flor De Cock

The scope of the execution code EN 1537:1999 is limited to “anchors consisting

2. APPLICATIONS OF GROUND ANCHORS

Figure 1 : applications of ground anchors (Samwoo)

Ground anchors: overview of types, installation

3. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Figure 2 : sketch of a (grouted) ground anchor (EN 1537:1999)

1. Anchorage point at jack during stressing

4. GROUND ANCHOR TYPES – CLASSIFICATION

Ground anchors: overview of types, installation

• The installation method?

METHOD OF FIXATION TO THE GROUND

Tensile type Compressive

* primary gravity grouting

Figure 3 : ground anchor classification proposal

The various anchor-soil interaction systems are scheduled in Figure 4 :

Ground anchors: overview of types, installation

Tensile type anchor

Tensile type anchor

Figure 4a and 4b : anchor-ground interaction for tensile type anchors

Ground anchors: overview of types, installation

Compressive type anchor

End bearing type anchor

5. GROUND ANCHOR COMPOSITIONS AND

Ground anchors: overview of types, installation

Figure 5: Typical execution phases of flush-drilled friction anchors

Complementary to the above mentioned general installation process, the

Alternatively, the very-high-pressure grouting method (Jetgrouting) (Figure 6) is

Ground anchors: overview of types, installation