Seismic interaction of two closely spaced

horizontal square and rectangular ground

anchors in layered soil
Priyanka Ghosh* and Ramdeo Kumar
In the present investigation, an attempt is made to explore the seismic response of two closely-spaced
horizontal square and rectangular ground anchors embedded in non-homogenous c – 𝜙 soil deposit at
different depths. The analysis is performed by using three dimensional finite difference program FLAC3D.
Each anchor carries equal static safe working load without violating the ultimate uplift capacity under
static condition. The soil is assumed to obey the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion. The behaviour of single
isolated anchor subjected to seismic loading is determined first to study the interaction effect between
two nearby anchors. The horizontal acceleration response obtained from the Loma Prieta Gilroy (1989)
earthquake is considered as the input horizontal excitation in the analysis. A parametric study is performed
by varying the clear spacing (S) between the anchors at different embedment ratios (𝜆). The magnitude
of vertical displacement of anchor plate, normal and shear stress developed at the anchor surface are
determined at different clear spacing between the anchors.
Keywords:  Earthquake, Interaction effect, Ground anchors, Layered soil, Uplift capacity

Introduction in a group to generate the necessary pullout resistance. It can

Ground anchors are inevitable to a number of geotechnical
engineering applications such as support of transmission tow-
ers, retaining walls, bridges, as well as structures subject to
buoyancy effects. In recent times, rapid urbanization coupled
with scarcity of land force several structures supported by such
ground anchors to come up ever closer to each other, which
may sometime cause severe instability to the structures from
both strength and serviceability point of view. Such interaction
between ground anchors becomes further critical under seis-
mic condition and hence, the determination of seismic inter-
action of closely spaced horizontal ground anchors is found
to be quite important investigation as it might cause major
catastrophe. Under static and seismic conditions, a number of
investigations have been performed by several researchers like
Meyerhof and Adams (1968), Rowe and Davis (1982), Murray
and Geddes (1987), Basudhar and Singh (1994), Subba Rao
and Kumar (1994), Kumar (2001), Choudhury and Subba Rao
(2004), Kumar and Kouzer (2008a) and Ghosh (2009, 2010)
to predict the uplift resistance of single isolated anchor with
the help of different solution techniques such as limit equi-
librium method, non-linear finite element analysis, upper and
lower bound limit analysis, and method of stress characteris-
tics. However, in a number of situations, anchors are placed
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur,
Kanpur, India
*Corresponding author, email priyog@iitk.ac.in
be noted from the literature that not much attention has been
paid by the researchers to determine the response of a group of
horizontal ground anchors under static and seismic conditions.
The effect of interaction on the uplift capacity of a group of
anchors under static condition has been studied by Meyerhof
and Adams (1968), Hanna et al. (1972), Geddes and Murray
(1996), Kumar and Kouzer (2008b), Kouzer and Kumar (2009),
and Ghosh and Santhoshkumar (2015); whereas the study on
the interaction of closely spaced anchors under seismic condi-
tion is still scarce (Ghosh and Kumari 2012). It is worth noting
that Ghosh and Kumari (2012) have reported the seismic inter-
action of closely spaced strip anchors. However, in majority of
the practical situations square or rectangular anchors are the
most preferred option. Therefore, the investigation on the seis-
mic interaction of closely spaced square or rectangular anchors
demands some attention.
In the present analysis, an effort is made to explore the seis-
mic interaction effect of two closely spaced horizontal square or
rectangular ground anchors embedded in dry non-homogenous
c−ϕ soil deposit at different depths. The analysis is performed
by using FLAC3D (Itasca Consulting Group, 2006), which is a
three-dimensional explicit finite-difference program for engi-
neering mechanics computation. The soil is assumed to obey
the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion with non-linear failure
envelope. The horizontal acceleration-time history obtained
from the Loma Prieta Gilroy (1989) earthquake is considered

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Received 23 April 2016; accepted 3 May 2016
80 DOI 10.1080/19386362.2016.1186883 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering   2017  VOL 11   NO 1
 Ghosh and Kumar  Seismic interaction of two closely spaced horizontal square and rectangular ground anchors

= D/B
D

Static load
intensity (p)
Static load
intensity (p) B S B
Left Right

Quiet boundary

Rigid base Layered deposit

x
Input horizontal
acceleration

1  Failure domain with associated details

E = 2.06 × 103 kN/m3, = 24.730

Horizontal input acceleration (cm/sec2)

cu = 19.4 kN/m2, = 17 kN/m3

E = 8.02 × 103 kN/m3, = 29.510

cu = 75.7 kN/m2, = 18 kN/m3

E = 1.12 × 104 kN/m3, = 30.880

cu = 106.0 kN/m2, = 19 kN/m3

Time (sec)

E = 4.52 × 104 kN/m3, = 36.160

3 Seismic horizontal input acceleration (Loma Prieta Gilroy
cu = 427.0 kN/m2, = 20 kN/m3
earthquake, 1989)

2  Layered soil deposit (Ghosh and Kumari 2012)

as the input excitation at the bed rock level. The vertical dis-
placement response of the interacting anchors at different clear
spacing, S and embedment ratio, λ as well as the stresses devel-
oped at the anchor level due to this input excitation are reported
in the present paper.
Definition of the problem
Two closely spaced embedded square (B × B) or rectangular
(B × L) anchors are placed in a dry layered soil deposit as shown
in Fig. 1. Each anchor is placed with its longest dimension (L)
along the y direction (normal to the plane) and carries a static
working load, which causes uniform static load intensity (p) on
each anchor. The objective is to determine the seismic response
in terms of the vertical displacement behavior of interacting
anchors, normal and shear stress developed at the anchor sur-
face due to the application of horizontal (x) seismic excitation
at the bed rock level. The x and z directions as shown in Fig. 1
are considered as positive.
Analysis
Materials
Two closely spaced horizontal square or rectangular anchors
with different embedment ratios are assumed to rest on a lay-
ered soil bed as in the field, the soil deposit is generally found
to be in layers. In the present study, a soil deposit comprising
of four layers resting on the strong bed rock at 11.7 m below

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2017  VOL 11   NO 1 81

Ghosh and Kumar  Seismic interaction of two closely spaced horizontal square and rectangular ground anchors
(a)
(b)
4 Normalized load-displacement curves for (a) isolated,
(b) interacting (S/B = 1.0) square anchor at different λ
the ground surface is considered. The thickness of top three
layers is considered as 3 m each, whereas the bottom layer is
2.7 m thick (Ghosh and Kumari 2012). The different properties
and strength parameters of each layer are obtained empirically
from the available field standard penetration test (SPT) results
as reported by Ghosh and Kumari (2012). The modulus of elas-
ticity (E), angle of internal friction (ϕ) and undrained cohesion
(cu) for each layer are obtained from the corrected SPT N values
by using the empirical correlations proposed by Farrent (1963),
De Mello (1971), and Terzaghi and Peck (1967), respectively
and are shown in Fig. 2.
The Poisson’s ratio (υ) of soil is considered as 0.3 for all the
layers. The water table is found to be at great depth, which is
assumed to have no significant impact on the seismic response
analysis. The Young’s modulus, density and Poisson’s ratio
of the steel anchor plate are considered as 2.1 × 108 kN/m2,
7800 kg/m3 and 0.25, respectively. The thickness of the anchor
plates is chosen as 0.1 m to provide sufficient rigidity against
the vertical pullout.
82 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2017  VOL 11   NO 1
(a)
(b)
5 Normalized load-displacement curves for (a) isolated,
(b) interacting (S/B = 1.0) rectangular (L/B = 2.0) anchor at
different λ
Numerical modeling
Three dimensional finite difference mesh has been created
using brick elements available in FLAC3D for two closely
spaced embedded anchors (left and right). In the analysis,
shell type structural element has been considered to model the
anchor plate, which is three-noded Discrete Kirchoff Triangle
(DKT) plate bending element. It is worth mentioning that
the DKT plate bending element is a three-noded plate ele-
ment with three degrees of freedom at each node i.e. one
translational and two rotational components. In the seismic
analysis, each anchor is assumed to carry a uniform static
safe load intensity p which is determined by dividing the
ultimate uplift capacity obtained from the static analysis by
a factor of safety of 2.5. The inertia force and other connec-
tivity coming from the superstructure are not considered in
the analysis. However, the inertia force of the buried anchor
plate is automatically taken care of by the analysis. First, the
static interaction effect of two nearby square or rectangular
anchors in terms of the ultimate uplift capacity is determined
 Ghosh and Kumar  Seismic interaction of two closely spaced horizontal square and rectangular ground anchors
(a)
u
Efficiency factor (
Square
anchors
S/B
(b)
u
Efficiency factor (
Rectangular
anchors (L/B = 2)
S/B
6 Variation of ξu with S/B at λ = 1 for interacting (a) square,
(b) rectangular (L/B = 2) anchors
for different magnitude of S. The sensitivity analysis is per-
formed to determine the optimum domain size under seis-
mic condition by varying the lateral dimension of the failure
domain from 6B to 14B from the edge of the anchors along
both x and y directions. Beyond the distance of 12B from the
edge of the anchor, no significant variation in the vertical
displacement of the anchor plates is observed. Therefore, in
the present study the failure domain with 12B distance from
the edge of the anchor is considered for both static and seis-
mic analysis. However, the depth of the failure domain along
the negative z direction is extended up to the bed rock level
irrespective of the type of anchor, which is 11.7 m below
the ground surface (z = 0). It is worth noting here that for
the ultimate static failure condition, the analysis is carried
out with half of the domain by taking the advantage of the
symmetry of the problem. The horizontal acceleration-time
history obtained from the Loma Prieta Gilroy (1989) earth-
quake is considered as the horizontal input excitation along
the x direction at the base of the failure domain i.e. at the
bed rock level (Fig. 3). It is worth mentioning here that the
analysis is also performed with the horizontal input acceler-
ation along the y direction. However, this does not reveal the
critical condition and hence, it is not explored further in the
 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2017  VOL 11   NO 1
present study. In the analysis, the soil is assumed to follow
the Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria with non-linear failure
envelope available in FLAC3D, whereas the steel anchors are
assumed to obey the elastic model. The seismic analysis is
carried out by following the steps listed below.
(a) The model is solved under the gravity loading only prior
to the placement of the anchors. In this step, the model
has experienced only the gravitational body force i.e.
the model is solved due to the self weight of soil only
to eliminate the initial settlement happening in the
model.
(b) The model is then analyzed with equal and uniform
static safe load intensity p applied on each anchor,
which predicts the static behaviour of the anchors under
the safe working load condition.
(c) The seismic analysis is then performed with the appli-
cation of horizontal acceleration response of the Loma
Prieta Gilroy (1989) earthquake as the input excitation
at the bed rock level.
During the static analysis (steps (a) and (b)), the extreme
side boundaries of the failure domain are kept fixed in the
direction normal to the respective plane, whereas the bottom
boundary is considered fixed in all directions. However, during
the seismic analysis all the side boundaries are considered as
quiet boundaries, available in FLAC3D, to avoid the reflection
of seismic waves back to the domain again, whereas the bottom
boundary is kept free to apply the input horizontal seismic
acceleration along the x direction. In the analysis, the damping
of the soil strata is considered as 5% local damping available
in FLAC3D, which appears to be reasonable consideration for
the present soil deposit.
Results and discussion
Static condition
Normalized load-displacement characteristics of an isolated as
well as interacting square and rectangular (L/B = 2.0) anchors
at different λ are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. It can be
noted that the uplift capacity, P of the anchors increases with
increase in the vertical displacement of the anchor plate, δ and
eventually becomes almost constant indicating the ultimate
uplift capacity, Pu. The uplift capacity of isolated anchor is
found to be higher than that of the interacting anchors, whereas
the magnitude of P always increases with increase in λ irrespec-
tive of the type of anchor. A parameter, efficiency factor (ξu)
with respect to the pullout capacity is introduced to compare the
uplift resistance of an interacting anchor with that of an isolated
anchor, which can be defined as the ratio of the ultimate pullout
capacity of an interacting anchor of a given width (B) to that
of an isolated anchor of the same size. The variation of ξu with
S/B for square and rectangular interacting anchors at λ = 1.0
is shown in Fig. 6. The study indicates that the magnitude of
ξu increases with increase in S/B ratio and eventually becomes
equal to 1.0 at some maximum spacing. It is worth noting here
that the value of ξu equal to 1.0 indicates the behaviour of single
isolated anchor without any interaction.
83
Ghosh and Kumar  Seismic interaction of two closely spaced horizontal square and rectangular ground anchors
(a)
Uz (mm) × 101
(b)
Uz (mm) × 10
7  Vertical displacement response of isolated (a) square, (b) rectangular (L/B = 2) anchor under seismic condition at λ = 1
Seismic condition
In presence of the horizontal acceleration response of the
Loma Prieta Gilroy (1989) earthquake as the input excitation
at the bed rock level (bottom of the boundary), the vertical
displacement of the anchor, normal and shear stress response
at the anchor surface are computed both for isolated as well as
interacting anchors. The vertical displacement (Uz) response
of isolated as well as interacting anchors at λ = 1.0 is shown
in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. It can be observed that the
84 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2017  VOL 11   NO 1
Isolated square
anchor
Isolated rectangular
anchor (L/B = 2)
vertical displacement response of the rectangular anchor is
higher than that of the square anchor. It can be also seen that
the maximum vertical displacement of the anchor generally
occurs between 4 and 6 s, and eventually reaches almost the
steady state as the time increases. An important parameter,
seismic displacement ratio (ξδE), is introduced to compare the
displacement of an interfering anchor with that of an isolated
anchor, which can be defined as the ratio of the peak displace-
ment of an interacting anchor of a given width (B) to that of
a single isolated anchor having the same width under seismic
 Ghosh and Kumar  Seismic interaction of two closely spaced horizontal square and rectangular ground anchors

(a)
Interacting square
anchors, S/B = 1

Uz (mm) × 101

(b)

Interacting rectangular
anchors, L/B = 2, S/B = 1
Uz (mm) × 101

8  Vertical displacement response of interacting (a) square, (b) rectangular (L/B = 2) anchors at S/B = 1 and λ = 1

condition. The variation of ξδE with S/B at different embed-
ment ratios for interacting square and rectangular anchors is
shown in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. The present analysis
indicates that the magnitude of ξδE initially increases with
increase in S/B, reaches a peak at some critical S/B ratio and
decreases further beyond the critical spacing. It can be further
noticed that the value of ξδE at a particular S/B ratio is found
to decrease with increase in the embedment ratio. However,
the trend is found to be almost similar for both left and right
anchors. It is expected that the magnitude of ξδE eventually
becomes 1.0 at a larger spacing indicating the behaviour of
isolated anchor without any interaction, which could not be
explored due to some computational constraints associated
with significantly larger failure domain at a very large spac-
ing. The variation of average normal (σzz) and shear (τxz) stress
response with time at the surface of interacting square anchors
at λ = 2 and S/B = 5 is shown in Fig. 11, while the variation
of stresses with time for interacting rectangular anchors at
λ = 2 and S/B = 5 is presented in Fig. 12. It can be observed
that a significant amount of amplification occurs both in the
normal and shear stress response at the anchor level. However,
the peak response is generally observed between 4 and 6.0 s,

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2017  VOL 11   NO 1 85

Ghosh and Kumar  Seismic interaction of two closely spaced horizontal square and rectangular ground anchors

(a) (a)
E
Seismic displacement ratio, =1

S/B

(b)
=2
(b)
E
Seismic displacement ratio,

S/B

9 Variation of ξδE with S/B for interacting square anchors at

different λ

10 Variation of ξδE with S/B for interacting rectangular

(L/B = 2) anchors at different λ

Table 1  Physical properties of dense cohesionless soil

(Singh and Mistri 2011)
As discussed earlier, the inertia force and other con-
Physical properties Values nectivity coming from the superstructure are not consid-
Modulus of elasticity, E (kN/m2) 3 × 104 ered in the analysis, which may change the present results
Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 20 significantly. It can be analyzed by exploring the whole
Angle of internal friction, ϕ (°) 40 structure-soil-structure system together. In such seis-
Poisson ratio, υ 0.4 mic structure-soil-structure interaction problem, the type
of superstructure and the connectivity of each element
should be studied thoroughly. However, the scope for the
Table 2  Comparison of Pu of isolated rectangular anchor present work is limited to explore the simplified approach
under static condition in cohesionless soil proposed by Singh to obtain the seismic response of two nearby interacting
and Mistri (2011) square or rectangular anchors purely based on geotechnical
Pu
point of view. Therefore, the rigorous analysis of complete
structure–soil–structure system could be a scope for the
Present Meyerhof and Adams Variation future study.
λ analysis (kN) (1968) (kN) (%)
4.0 227.5 205.0 +9.89
Comparison
A number of investigations on the single isolated square
which is almost in line with the input excitation applied at and rectangular anchors under static and seismic conditions
the bed rock level. are available in the literature; whereas the same for closely

86 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2017  VOL 11   NO 1

 Ghosh and Kumar  Seismic interaction of two closely spaced horizontal square and rectangular ground anchors

(a)
= 2, S/B = 5

) × 104
2
zz (N/m
Normal stress,

(b)

= 2, S/B = 5
) × 104
2
xz (N/m
Shear stress,

11  Average (a) normal and (b) shear stress response at the surface of interacting square anchors at λ = 2, S/B = 5

spaced square or rectangular anchors under static condition
is scanty and it is further scarce under seismic condition.
The present results for a layered soil system under static
condition could not be compared with any of the research
works reported in the literature due to lack of direct match
in the soil properties. However, for the validation purpose,
the present analysis is carried out with an isolated rectangular
anchor resting on a homogeneous cohesionless soil deposit.
The properties of the soil deposit as proposed by Singh and
Mistri (2011) is given in Table 1. Most of the researchers
have proposed approximate techniques to estimate the uplift
capacity of horizontal plate anchors in either sandy or cohe-
sive soil deposit. However, the present analysis is carried
out for dense cohesionless soil deposit (Table 1). In Table 2,
the magnitude of the ultimate uplift capacity obtained from
the present static analysis for isolated rectangular anchor of
L = 1 m and B = 0.5 m is compared with the value obtained
from the theory proposed by Meyerhof and Adams (1968).
The value of the ultimate uplift capacity of an isolated rec-
tangular anchor obtained from the present analysis is found
to match well with the result obtained from the theory of
Meyerhof and Adams (1968).
Conclusions
The static and seismic interaction effect of two nearby horizon-
tal square or rectangular anchors placed in non-homogeneous
c–ϕ soil medium at different embedment ratios is determined

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2017  VOL 11   NO 1 87

Ghosh and Kumar  Seismic interaction of two closely spaced horizontal square and rectangular ground anchors

(a)

(b)

12  Average (a) normal and (b) shear stress response at the level of interacting rectangular (L/B = 2) anchors at λ = 2, S/B = 5

numerically. The uplift capacity of anchors under static con-
dition is observed to be strongly dependent upon the embed-
ment ratio, which increases considerably with increase in λ.
It is observed from the analysis that the amount of displace-
ment required to attain the ultimate failure usually increases
with increase in the embedment ratio. The results under static
condition are provided in terms of the efficiency factor (ξu)
with respect to the uplift resistance at different S/B ratios. The
magnitude of the failure load reduces quite extensively with
decrease in the spacing between the anchors. The seismic
response in terms of vertical displacement, average normal
and shear stress is presented for isolated as well as interacting
anchor system. The amount of amplification in the displace-
ment response is generally found to be increased with increase
in the embedment ratio. The peak response under the seismic
excitation is generally observed between 4 and 6 s, which is in
line with the input excitation applied at the bed rock level. The
present analysis shows that the magnitude of ξδE for both left

88 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2017  VOL 11   NO 1

 Ghosh and Kumar  Seismic interaction of two closely spaced horizontal square and rectangular ground anchors

and right anchors increases initially with increase in S/B ratio, Funding
reaches a peak at some critical spacing and then decreases with
further increase in S/B ratio. This work was supported by the Science and Engineering
Research Board [grant number SR/S3/MERC-021/2011 (G)].

Notations
References
B  width of anchor Basudhar, P. K. and Singh, D. N. 1994. A generalized procedure for predicting
optimal lower bound break-out factors of strip anchors. Géotechnique, 44,
D  depth of embedment of anchor (2), 307–318.
Choudhury, D. and Subba Rao, K. S. 2004. Seismic uplift capacity of strip
E  modulus of elasticity of soil anchors in soil. Geotech. Geol. Eng., 22, (1), 59–72.
De Mello, V. F. 1971. The standard penetration test. Proc. 4th Pan-American
L  length of anchor Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, 1, 1–86.
N  corrected SPT blow counts Farrent, T. A. 1963. The prediction and field verification of settlement in
cohesionless soils. Proc. 4th Australia-New Zeland Conference on Soil
P  uplift capacity of anchor Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Adelaide, 11–17.
Geddes, J. D. and Murray, E. J. 1996. Plate anchor groups pulled vertically in
Pu  ultimate uplift capacity of anchor sand. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 122, (7), 509–516.
Ghosh, P. 2009. Seismic vertical uplift capacity of horizontal strip
S  clear spacing between two anchors anchors using pseudo-dynamic approach. Comput. Geotech., 36, (1–2),
342–351.
Smax  maximum effective clear spacing Ghosh, P. 2010. Seismic uplift capacity of inclined strip anchors in sand using
upper bound limit analysis. Geomech. Geoeng., 5, (4), 267–275.
Uz  vertical displacement of anchor under seismic condition Ghosh, P. and Kumari, R. 2012. Seismic interference of two nearby horizontal
strip anchors in layered soil. Natural Hazards, 63, (2), 789–804.
cu  undrained cohesion of soil Ghosh, P. and Santhoshkumar, G. 2015. Vertical uplift capacity of two nearby
horizontal strip anchors using method of stress characteristics. Int. J.
δ  vertical displacement of anchor Geomech., ASCE, 16, (1), 1–17.
Hanna, T. H., Sparks, R., and Yilmaz, M. 1972. Anchor behaviour in sand. J.
ϕ  angle of internal friction of soil Soil Mech. Found Div., ASCE, 98, (11), 1187–1207.
Itasca Consulting Group. 2006. Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in 3
γ  unit weight of soil dimensions (FLAC3D), Version 3.1, User’s Guide, Minneapolis, MN, Pub
- Itasca.
λ  embedment ratio = D/B Kouzer, K. M. and Kumar, J. 2009. Vertical uplift capacity of two interfering
horizontal anchors in sand using an upper bound limit analysis. Comput.
p  static working load intensity Geotech., 36, 1084–1089.
Kumar, J. 2001. Seismic vertical uplift capacity of strip anchors. Géotechnique,
σzz  normal stress 51, (3), 275–279.
Kumar, J. and Kouzer, K. M. 2008a. Vertical uplift capacity of horizontal anchors
τxz  shear stress using upper bound limit analysis and finite elements. Can. Geotech. J., 45,
698–704.
υ  Poisson’s ratio Kumar, J. and Kouzer, K. M. 2008b. Vertical uplift capacity of a group of
shallow horizontal anchors in sand. Géotechnique, 58, (10), 821–823.
ξu  static efficiency factor with respect to pullout capacity Meyerhof, G. G. and Adams, J. I. 1968. The ultimate uplift capacity of
foundations. Can. Geotech. J., 5, (4), 225–244.
ξδE  seismic displacement ratio Murray, E. J. and Geddes, J. D. 1987. Uplift of anchor plates in sand. J. Geotech.
Eng., ASCE, 113, (3), 202–215.
Rowe, R. K. and Davis, E. H. 1982. The behaviour of anchor plates in clay.
Géotechnique, 32, (1), 9–23.
Acknowledgements Singh, B. and Mistri, B. 2011. A study on load capacity of horizontal and inclined
plate anchors in sandy soils. Inter. J. Eng. Sci Technol., 3, 9, 6914–6922.
The first author would like to acknowledge the financial sup- Subba Rao, K. S. and Kumar, J. 1994. Vertical uplift capacity of horizontal
anchors. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 120, (7), 1134–1147.
port provided by the Department of Science and Technology
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B. 1967. Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 2nd
(DST), India to carry out the present work through a sponsored ed., New York, NY, Wiley.
research project.

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2017  VOL 11   NO 1 89