ANALYSIS OF THE STABILITY OF AN ANCHOR

BLOCK FOR A SUSPENSION BRIDGE

By Dr Evert Hoek
Vancouver

February 2003

1. Introduction
The analysis discussed in the following notes deals with one of the anchors for a 500
m long suspension bridge proposed for a major highway project. A detailed analysis
was carried out as part of the design of the suspension bridge and my role was to
review this analysis on behalf of the owner. In fact, the bridge was not built since an
alternative design was chosen for the final construction. However, this does not alter
the validity of the design and the valuable lessons that can be learned from this
analysis.
The layout of the bridge is illustrated in Figure 1 that shows that the suspension cables
are anchored directly in the rock. Different options for this anchor, located on a steep
rocky outcrop, were considered. Three of these options, one for a gravity anchor block
two for tunnelled socket anchors, are discussed here.

Figure 1: Overall view of suspension bridge layout.

2. Geological factors influencing the stability of the anchorage
A plan of the gravity anchor block and of the tunnelled socket anchorage is shown in
Figure 2. A section through the proposed gravity anchor block is shown in Figure 3.
The anchorages are located on a promontory of thick-bedded sandstone, which is
underlain by thinly bedded sandstone/siltstone outcropping to the west of the
anchorage. Due to a fold structure that forms the nose of the promontory, the
structural geology of the East-facing slope is significantly different from that in the
South-facing slope. This difference results in a stable East-facing slope and a less
stable South-facing slope. The outline of a landslip on the South-facing slope is
shown in yellow in Figure 2 and this landslip has an influence of the layout of the
anchorage alternatives.
3. Methods used to assess the stability of anchorage options
The Designer assessed the stability of the gravity anchorage by means of a twodimensional limit equilibrium analysis (using the program TALREN) and twodimensional numerical analyses (using the programs SAFE, VISAGE and UDEC). A

Suspension bridge anchor block analysis

Page 3

three dimensional study, using the program VISAGE, was also carried out. No
analyses were performed for the tunnelled socket options.
In reviewing the design report I found that the easiest way for me fully to understand
the information presented was to carry out my own analyses, using different software
from that used by the Designer. In preparing the models for these analyses I have also
reinterpreted the basic data and this has resulted in some slight differences in the
parameters included in the analyses. I consider that this is an advantage since it
provides an independent view of the stability of the anchor block and an assessment
of the behaviour of one of the tunnelled socket options.

Figure 2: Layout of alternative anchorages for the bridge cable.

Suspension bridge anchor block analysis

Page 4
Backfill

Figure 3: Section through the gravity anchor block.

4. Limit equilibrium analysis
The program SLIDE1 was used to check the limit equilibrium analysis carried out by
the Designer. The details of the model are illustrated in Figure 4 and the properties of
the various materials used in the model, assumed to be fully drained, are given in
Table 1.
5000 kN cable force on anchor
Backfill

Concrete anchor block

front open, back filled with
rockfill
2588 kN reaction on bearing

Excavation damaged rock

Thin bedded sandstone

Thick bedded sandstone

Figure 4: Details of limit equilibrium model in SLIDE. The cable force of 150 MN is
applied over a 30 m wide gravity block base, giving a force of 5000 kN/m on the
cable anchor and a vertical reaction of 2588 kN/m on the saddle bearing.
Table 1: Summary of rock mass properties used in the SLIDE analysis.
1

Details are available from www.rocscience.com

Suspension bridge anchor block analysis

Material
Thick bedded sandstone

Page 5

Properties
Unit weight = 26 kN/m3
90
45

A
B

25

A
A B/C
-75
-90

Thin bedded
sandstone/siltstone

-45

A : c = 352 kPa, = 54
B : c = 0 kPa, = 30.2
C : c = 0 kPa, = 18

Unit weight = 26 kN/m

90
45

A
B

25

A
A B/C
-90 -75

A : c = 182 kPa, = 41
B : c = 0 kPa, = 29.3

-45

C : c = 0 kPa, = 16

Excavation damaged rock

Unit weight = 26 kN/m3

c = 0, = 36

Backfill

Unit weight = 16.9 kN/m3

c = 0, = 36

Concrete anchor block

(concrete construction with
rock backfill)

Equivalent Unit weight = 19

kN/m3 (back), = 12 kN/m3 (front)
Assumed to be elastic (infinite
strength)

Comments
Anisotropic strength
representing the combined
properties of the rock mass
(based on Hoek Brown
criterion) and two sets of
joints (B) or one set of joints
and one set of bedding
planes (C).
Anisotropic strength
representing the combined
properties of the rock mass
(based on Hoek Brown
criterion) and two sets of
joints (B) or one set of joints
and one set of bedding
planes (C).

Equivalent unit weight based

on cross-sectional area and
total mass of 380 MN given in
the Designers report.

The program SLIDE has a number of options for automatic non-circular failure
surface searches and one of these options was used to produce the results shown in
Figure 5 and 6. The General Limit Equilibrium method is a very powerful noncircular analysis method that was used in this study. A wide range of material models,
including the Hoek-Brown failure criterion and user-defined anisotropic criteria, can
be included in the model. Hence, I believe that the failure surfaces shown in Figure 5
and 6 are realistic for this slope.
The structural geology of the rock mass forming this slope varies significantly across
the width of the slope and, in order to cover this variation, I have carried out two sets
of analyses. The first of these assumes that the structure in the plane of the analysis is
controlled by two sets of orthogonal joints (B in Table 1, with the results shown in
Figure 5) while the second assumes one set of joints and a set of bedding planes
dipping approximately parallel to the slope (C in Table 1, with the results shown in
Figure 6).
The failure surfaces shown in Figure 5 indicate that potential sliding is controlled by a
combination of sliding along joints and failure through the rock mass. The global
factor of safety of 3.5 involves the entire rock mass from the crest to the toe of the
slope. The local factor of safety of 3.9 is typical of the numerous failure surfaces
generated in the immediate vicinity of the anchor block. These factors of safety were
checked for a range of cable load factors and were found to be almost independent of
this load up to a cable load of six times the design load.

Suspension bridge anchor block analysis

Page 6

Figure 5: Most critical failure surfaces for the East-facing slope on which the
proposed gravity anchor block is located. Factors of safety are shown for three of the
surfaces.

In the case of the model with the bedding planes dipping approximately parallel to the
slope, Figure 6 shows a number of failure surfaces with a minimum factor of safety of
2.81. The bedding planes in the thick bedded sandstone are assumed to have a shear
strength defined by c = 0 and = 18 while, for the thin bedded sandstone, I have
assumed c = 0 and = 16, based on some laboratory shear test results. Once again,
the stability of the slope is independent of the load applied to the cable anchor block.
I believe that these two models represent the extremes of the behaviour of the slope
and that the actual situation probably lies somewhere between these extremes. These
studies confirm the conclusion reached by the Designer that the factors of safety of
the slope determined by two-dimensional limit equilibrium analyses, exceed the factor
of safety of 1.25 required by Euro Code 7 by a substantial margin.

Suspension bridge anchor block analysis

Page 7

Figure 6: Most critical failure surfaces for the model with bedding planes dipping
approximately parallel to the slope.
Sliding along the base of the block controls stability of the gravity anchor. The factor
of safety for this failure mode was not calculated since it depends upon the material
properties assumed and the geometry of the shear key on the base of the block. It is a
simple matter to change this geometry and I am in complete agreement with the
Designer that an adequate factor of safety against sliding on the base can be achieved.
I have not carried out any detailed seismic loading studies but a few checks gave
results consistent with those reported by the Designer.
5. Numerical analyses of gravity anchorage stability
The limit equilibrium analyses described above suffer from the disadvantages that
some form of predefined failure path must be assumed and that displacements in the
slope are not taken into account. These disadvantages can be overcome by using a
numerical analysis method in which the progressive failure and deformation of the
entire system can be simulated.
The Desugners used the continuum finite element models SAFE and VISAGE and the
discrete element finite difference UDEC to carry out two-dimensional analyses on the
gravity anchorage. The program VISAGE was used for three-dimensional studies. In

Suspension bridge anchor block analysis

Page 8

order to understand the behaviour of these models and to check the results of the
analyses, I have carried out a series of studies using the two-dimensional continuum
finite element model PHASE22.
Details of the gravity anchor block model that I have used are illustrated in Figure 7.
In this model the thick-bedded sandstone and the thin-bedded sandstone/siltstone have
been modelled as Hoek-Brown materials. A set of orthogonal joints have been
superimposed on the thick bedded sandstone to simulate the most unfavourable joint
orientations that can be derived from the structural geology observations. A 2 m wide
zone of excavation damaged material has been wrapped around the base of the
gravity anchor block. The properties of all the materials included in this model are
given in Table 2.
An additional set of analyses were carried out in which bedding planes dipping
approximately parallel to the slope were included, as in the case of the limit
equilibrium model used to generate the results shown in Figure 6. The results given
by these two finite elements models were not significantly different and I have only
reported the results from the first of these models here.
The Phase2 model was run in the following four stages:
1. The overall model, consisting of thick bedded sandstone and thin bedded
sandstone/siltstone, was subjected to gravity loading with a ratio of horizontal
to vertical stress of 0.25:1. The model was run to equilibrium to simulate the
consolidation of the rock masses. Some slip on the joint systems occurred
during this consolidation process.
2. The open cut excavation required to accommodate the concrete gravity
anchorage structure was excavated and the stresses and displacements in the
model were again allowed to reach equilibrium.
3. The concrete gravity anchorage was cast in place and the rear compartment
was backfilled.
4. The loads were applied to simulate the thrust on the saddle bearing and the
loads on the cable anchorage. The final run to equilibrium was completed and
the results of the modelling process interpreted.
Figure 8 is a typical printout from one of these interpretations. The displacement
vectors show that most of the displacements are of the anchor block itself and the rock
in the immediate vicinity of this block. This confirms the finding from the limit
equilibrium studies that the overall stability of the slope is not significantly influenced
by the application of the cable load. There is a slight tendency for the block to rotate
but the magnitude of this displacement is very small.
Since the behaviour of the anchorage is very local, the logical approach to analysing
its stability is to examine its response to increasing cable loads. In order to provide a
basis for comparing all of the anchorage options, the total displacement of the saddle
bearing has been measured in the Phase2 analyses. As far as I can ascertain, the same
measurement point was used by the Designers in their analyses in which the cable
load was increased until failure of the model occurred.
2

Details are available from www.rocscience.com.

Suspension bridge anchor block analysis

Page 9

Figure 7: Phase2 finite element model of the gravity anchor block and the underlying
slope.

Table 2: Mechanical properties assumed in the Phase2 model

Material

Properties

Comments

Thick bedded sandstone

Unit weight = 0.026 MN/m

Hoek-Brown material defined by
GSI = 40, mi = 17, ci = 40 MPa
giving E = 3556 MPa, mb = 1.99,
s = 0.0013.
Joints defined by c = 0, = 36

Thin bedded
sandstone/siltstone

Unit weight = 0.026 MN/m

Hoek-Brown material defined by
GSI = 30, mi = 10, ci = 15 MPa
giving E = 1633 MPa, mb = 0.98,
s = 0.0007.

Excavation damaged rock

Unit weight = 0.026 MN/m

c = 0, = 38

Backfill

Unit weight = 0.017 MN/m

c = 0, = 36

Concrete anchor block

(concrete construction with
rock backfill in rear
compartment)

Equivalent Unit weight = 0.019

3
3
MN/m (back), = 0.012 MN/m
(front)
Assumed to be elastic (infinite
strength)

Based upon Hoek-Brown

parameters quoted by the
Designer

Based upon Hoek-Brown

parameters quoted by the
Designer

Assuming typical rockfill

properties

Equivalent unit weight based

on cross-sectional area and
total mass of 380 MN given in
the Designers report.
Distribution of unit weights to
simulate filled rear
compartment and open front
compartment.

Suspension bridge anchor block analysis

Page 10

Figure 8: Typical results given by the finite element program Phase2 for the gravity
anchorage. Slip on the joints during consolidation is shown in dark red/brown while
slip resulting from the application of the cable load is shown in red. The displacement
vectors indicate the total movements of the anchor block and rock mass as a result of
the application of the cable load, i.e. they are the difference in displacements between
the third and fourth stages of the model.

Figure 9: Displacement of the saddle anchor for different anchorage options for
increasing cable force, expressed as a factor on the design load of 150 MN.

Suspension bridge anchor block analysis

Page 11

Figure 9 shows the results of the Phase2 analysis of the gravity anchorage block and
compares it with the displacements measurements on the SAFE, UDEC and VISAGE
models used by the Designer. Considering the differing assumptions included in these
models, the agreement between these results is considered to be excellent. Note that I
have assumed deformation modulus values of approximately one third of those used
by the Designer and this accounts for the larger initial deformations exhibited by the
Phase2 model.
The plot also includes results for two tunnelled socket options that will be discussed
later.
In these analyses, failure is defined as a sudden change in the slope of the load
deformation curve, as shown by the VISAGE solution for a load factor of
approximately 2.5. Less pronounced failure points are shown by the other models
but, in all cases, the load factor is well in excess of the load factor of 1.4 required by
Euro Code 7.
6. Analysis of tunnelled socket options
In addition to the gravity anchorage solution discussed above, the Designer has also
carried out a conceptual study of four tunnelled socket anchorage options. A crosssection through Option 1 is reproduced in Figure 10. The other three options are
generally similar but, for Options 3 and 4, the tunnel portion has been skewed in a
horizontal plane. The basic aim in all of the designs is to avoid intersecting the
landslip which is shown in plan in Figure 2 and outlined in red in Figure 10.
The Designer did not provide any stability studies on these tunnelled socket
anchorage options but they did present detailed drawings and estimated costs.

Figure 10: Section through tunnelled socket anchorage Option 1.

Suspension bridge anchor block analysis

Page 12

A complete analysis of these options requires a three-dimensional model since it is

not possible to represent the tunnel portion of the anchorage correctly in two
dimensions. However, for comparative purposes, an acceptable approximation can be
made by representing the tunnel as a slot and using the same type of analyses as were
used for the gravity block option.
Figure 11 shows the results of one such study in which tunnelled socket Option 1 has
been analysed by means of the program Phase2. The plot is similar to that given in
Figure 8 and the measured displacements of the saddle bearing are included in Figure
9. Comparing Figures 8 and 11 shows that more of the rock mass is involved in the
movements associated with the tunnelled socket option. However, these movements
are still localised and have a negligible influence on the overall stability of the Eastfacing slope. Since no base sliding is involved, as for the gravity anchor, there is no
distinct failure load within the scale of cable forces plotted in Figure 9.
This relative crude analysis suggests that it is entirely feasible to anchor the cable by
means of a tunnelled socket system such as that illustrated in Figure 10. Hence the
choice of the anchorage method can be made on the basis of other considerations
including cost.

Figure 11: Displacement vectors obtained in a Phase2 model of tunnelled socket

anchorage Option 1.
7. Consideration of a vertical shaft socket anchorage
In view of the uncertainty about the long-term stability and possible extent of the
landslip, one obvious approach is to move all the components of the anchorage as far
away as possible from the landslip. One way to do this is to anchor the cable in a
vertical shaft. This option is possible because of the fact that the stability of the
overall slope has been shown to be independent of the anchorage forces and that the

Suspension bridge anchor block analysis

Page 13

reaction to these forces is confined to the rock mass immediately surrounding the
anchorage.
Figure 12 shows the results of a crude Phase2 analysis of this option and the measured
displacements of the saddle bearing are included in Figure 9. While the displacements
are somewhat larger than for the tunnelled socket Option 1, the behaviour is still more
than adequate in terms of the EC 7 requirements.
From a purely practical point of view, I consider that there are significant advantages
to a vertical shaft as compared with any of the inclined shaft options studied by the
Designer. Not only is excavation of a vertical shaft easier but the arrangement of
ladderways and services is also simpler. Drainage can be by gravity through a large
diameter borehole exiting in the slope face.

Figure 12: Displacement vectors obtained in a Phase2 model of a possible vertical

shaft anchorage. Note that many more joints have been included in the upper part of
the rock mass as compared with the model shown in Figure 11.
8. Conclusions and recommendations
All of the anchorage options studied by the Designer and the vertical shaft anchorage
option discussed in this report can be constructed with confidence that they will
provide adequate stability, not only of the anchorage but also of the East-facing slope
below the cable. I agree with the recommendation by the Designer that the gravity
anchorage option is the simplest and cheapest solution.
I consider that the question of the landslip on the South-facing slope requires further
consideration. The Designer has pointed out that the long-term behaviour of this
landslip is difficult to quantify, particularly under earthquake conditions. Based on the

Suspension bridge anchor block analysis

Page 14

various analyses that I have carried out, I agree with this assessment. However, there
is a possibility that further movement of the landslip could result in the formation of a
steep back scarp which could undercut the cantilevered rear compartment of the
anchor block. I believe that it is necessary to deal with this issue, in spite of the fact
that it does not influence the sliding stability of the anchor block.
I consider that it is necessary to carry out additional site investigations with the aim of
clearly defining the present and future limits of the landslip in the immediate vicinity
of the anchor block. Based on this investigation, a stabilisation scheme should be
devised, including anchorage of the thick-bedded sandstone if necessary, to ensure
that retrogressive failure of the landslip does not result in undercutting of any portion
of the anchor block.
If such an investigation proves that it is not possible or that it is too expensive to
stabilise this back scarp, then consideration has to be given to the use of an anchorage
system, such as the vertical shaft option proposed in this review, that isolates the
anchorage from the landslip to the maximum extent possible.