## 5 Conclusions  
This study is a comparative analysis of the anchorage performance of tension anchors and composite anchors through field tests. The following conclusions were drawn:  
1. The ultimate bearing capacity of a 3 m composite anchor is 1.44 times that of a tension anchor of the same length, and 1.1 times that of a 4 m tension anchor. Unlike tension anchors that rely on increasing anchorage length to enhance bearing capacity, the composite anchor improves bearing capacity effectively by incorporating structural modifications. 2. The composite anchor not only improves ultimate bearing capacity, but also exhibits significant deformation during the early loading stage. It effectively prevents sudden displacement increases in the anchor head in the later loading stage, and the load-displacement curve shows a small slope before and after failure. 3. The axial force transmission behavior of tension anchors with different anchorage lengths was analyzed in this experiment. It was observed that the axial force of the three groups of tension anchors experienced abrupt changes at an anchorage depth of approximately 2 m, with an increased attenuation rate. Therefore, in the design of load-dispersed composite anchors, it is recommended to keep the effective anchorage length of each unit anchorage section below 2 m to fully utilize the strength of the rock and soil mass in the anchorage section. 4. By implementing structural measures such as a bearing plate and steel casing, the tension-compression-dispersed composite anchor enables load transmission to deeper rock and soil masses, fully utilizing the strength of the lower rock and soil mass. It effectively prevents bond-weakening effects, reduces local stress concentration to some extent, achieves a more uniform distribution of side friction resistance, and enhances the overall anchorage performance of the anchor. Y.L. : Conceptualization, Methodology, Field test. K.X. : Structure design of anchors, Field test, Writing--original draft. B.W. : Formal analysis, Writing--review and editing. J.L. : Investigation, Field test. Y.M. : Field test. M.Z. : Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisition. * _[PERSON] et al. (2012)_ [PERSON]; [PERSON] Grouting of anchors to resist hydrostatic uplift at Burnley tunnel, Melbourne, Australia. In Proceedings of the Grouting and Deep, Mixing 2012, Engineers, New Orleans, LA, USA, 15-18 February 2012; pp. 1073-1084. * _[PERSON] et al. (2020)_ [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Research progress on glass fiber reinforced polymer anchors in anti-floating engineering of underground structures. _Mater. Rep._**2020**, _34_, 13194-13202. * _[PERSON] et al. (2009)_ [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Research on composite support pattern of soil nails and prestressed anchors in deep foundation pits. _Rock Soil Mech._**2009**, _30_, 3793-3796. * _[PERSON] et al. (1996)_ [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Load distribution along fully grouted bolts, with emphasis on cable bolt reinforcement. _Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geom._**1996**, _20_, 517-544. [CrossRef]
* _[PERSON] et al. (2015)_ [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Pullout performance of GFRP anti-floating anchor in weathered soil. _Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol._**2015**, _49_, 408-416. [CrossRef]
* _[PERSON] et al. (2017)_ [PERSON]; [PERSON] Rock & Soil Anchoring Technology and Its Engineering Application. In Proceedings of the 2017 2 nd International Conference on Environmental Science and Energy Engineering (ICESEE 2017), Beijing, China, 15-16 January 2017. * _[PERSON] et al. (2021)_ [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Pull-out test and ultimate bearing capacity calculation of grouting branch-type anchor. _Rock Soil. Mech._**2021**, _42_, 1126-1132. * _[PERSON] et al. (2023)_ [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Prototype test and load transfer characteristic analysis of multi-disk anchor rod. _Rock Soil. Mech._**2023**, _44_, 520-530. * _[PERSON] et al.