You are on page 1of 34

7/14/2011

Structure Foundations AS/NZS 7000:2010 Section 9 & Appendix L


Henry Hawes
FIEAust, RPEQ, CPEng. Consultant hhawes@bigpond.com

SECTION 9 FOUNDATIONS 9.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES Foundations for structures and the anchor of any stays or guy wires shall be capable of withstanding loads specified for the ultimate strength limit state and serviceability limit states conditions. Foundation design should be based on appropriate engineering soil properties.

7/14/2011

Where soil test information is not available, an estimate of soil parameters should be made based on an appraisal of site conditions, soil types and geological structure.

Construction personnel shall be made aware of the assumed parameters and guidelines should be issued that will allow recognition of soils not conforming to the adopted design parameters. In calculating the strength of foundations, recognition should be given for the different strength characteristics of soil under short-term and long-term loads, and the difference in saturated and dry properties of the soil.

7/14/2011

For distribution lines


The consequences of partial foundation failure for the typical distribution pole or structure are not normally as severe. Designers should assess the cost of providing foundations that will remain elastic for all design loads versus the cost of straightening poles

Eg. Pole foundation materials will yield under saturated soil conditions and overload (controlled failure ?)

7/14/2011

Soil design parameters


In the absence of better information from soil investigations, the soil parameters provided in Appendix L may be used as a guideline for design. However it should be confirmed by inspection or testing, during construction, that the soil parameters used are appropriate.

9.3 BACKFILLING OF EXCAVATED MATERIALS


When backfilling is used, sufficient compaction shall be carried out to ensure foundation actions can be developed as designed. In certain circumstances, a possible reduction of consistency of cohesive soils should be taken into account in the calculations if compaction standards are to be relaxed.

7/14/2011

9.4 CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION Designs of foundations should include consideration of the method of construction and installation of foundations to ensure the assumed or designed geotechnical parameters are able to be realised.

APPENDIX L STRUCTURE FOOTING DESIGN AND GUIDELINES FOR THE GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS OF SOILS AND ROCKS

(Informative)
This Appendix addresses fundamental performance criteria and the design methods associated with overhead line footings and their foundations

7/14/2011

Several alternative approaches can be used for the design of footings and the interpretation of the foundation conditions, the designer should exercise sound engineering judgment in determining which method is most appropriate for the standard of construction required.

Australian Panel B2 Overhead Lines Seminar AS/NZS 7000:2010 Overhead Line Design Sydney 28 29 March 2011

The designer also has the option to design each footing for site-specific loadings and actual subsurface conditions or to Develop standard designs that can be used at sites within application guidelines for various possible sub soil conditions.

7/14/2011

Geotechnical Parameters Soils And Rocks


On major transmission lines it can be expected that a higher level of specialist engineering will be applied to the geotechnical design of footings and their foundations and hence some form of subsurface investigation could be expected to be carried out It may not always be practical to do subsoil investigations and simplified assessments may be required to establish some indicative yet conservative parameters. In distribution line construction simple subsurface application design guidelines are commonly applied

Soil and Rock Design Parameters


Cohesive soils Non-cohesive soils Soft rock Medium Hard Rock

7/14/2011

Generally, to determine the foundation ultimate load carrying capacity the shear strength of soil is required. s = c + n tan . . . L1 where s = shear strength c = cohesion n = normal stress = angle of internal friction

Cohesive Soils
Cohesive soils can generally be expected to resist design loads for a short duration of time without experiencing significant movements Long term loads applied over the service life of the structure most probably will result in excessive displacements

7/14/2011

Guideline For Typical Cohesive soil properties

Ref: Tomlinson +

7/14/2011

Non Cohesive /Granular soils are normally firmer in composition and have similar properties under short-term and long-term loading conditions

Non Cohesive Soils

10

7/14/2011

Guideline For Typical Non Cohesive soil properties

Ref: Tomlinson +

Rock
Table L3 of AS/NZS 7000 can be used as a conservative guide to typical rock types Data has been confirmed by multiple field tests using micropiles

11

7/14/2011

Rock Anchor

Rock Auger

(with some difficulty)


Easily Bored
(just able to be drilled with air drill)

12

7/14/2011

Design should consider available construction plant

L3 Pole Foundations
The Brinch Hansen methodology provided in this clause and other methods referenced such as Broms (ASCE 1964), while applied in some areas for major pole or single bored pier footings they have not been commonly used for directly embedded pole type distribution overhead lines.

13

7/14/2011

Simple design methods have been in use for distribution pole overhead lines throughout Australia and New Zealand and overseas for many years and these overhead lines have performed well over time.

Distribution Pole Footing Design

There are several commonly used methods


1. American Society of Agricultural Engineers ANSI/ASAE EP486.1 OCT 00 Shallow Post Foundation Design

Where d =

6Va +

8 Ma d Sb

14

7/14/2011

2. Empirical Design Formula


Assumed tip loading position d
t

Tip

Ground level 200mm

Assumed critical cross section for design dgl

dgl LGL
d
b

Pole planting depth LGL

Butt

LGL LGL

= Min[(1 + 0.1 hr) (dg/250).3.6] = Min[(1 + 0.1 hr) (dg/330).4.8]

for hr <18 for hr 18

Australian Panel B2 Overhead Lines Seminar AS/NZS 7000:2010 Overhead Line Design Sydney 28 29 March 2011

MINIMUM EMBEDMENT DEPTH LGL (m)


Height from GL (ground line) to conductor (m) Pole dia. at GL (mm) 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 550 600 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.6 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

13.5 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

15 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

16.5 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

18 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.8

15

7/14/2011

3. Alternative Empirical Design Formula (Old C(b) 1 and Queensland Regulations SECQ M1-1977 )
LGL LGL = Min[(0.6+ 0.1 hr) = Min[(0.6+ 0.1 hr) - 0.1 for hr <17 for hr 17

4 . ASCE Method (EX AS/NZS 4676)

D=

3.6 H R + 12.96 H 2 R + 16.2 CM 2C

16

7/14/2011

BEARING STRENGTH OF SOILS AT THE SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE

Class

Very soft

Soft

Firm

Very firm

Hard

Soil description

Silty clays and sands; loose dry sands

Wet clays; silty loams; wet or loose sands

Damp clays; sandy clays; damp sands

Dry clays; sands; coarse compact sands

clayey sands;

Gravels; dry clays

Strength (fb) kPa

fb 60

60 < fb 100

100 < fb 150

150 < fb 240

240 < fb

The above values are based on foundation deformations of approximately 12 mm under serviceability loads on building structures. For poles supporting services that are sensitive to displacements at their supporting points (e.g. microwave antennas), this degree of deformation might be inappropriate. Therefore, suitable reduction of these values may be necessary. This may be achieved by increasing the embedment depth, or the footing diameter, or both, which will reduce the bearing pressures and, consequently, the deformations.

POLE EMBEDMENT DEPTHS FOR SOILS WITH fb = 150 kPa


Embedment depth (D) (Note 1) m, for horizontal force (H) kN Effective H = 3.0 H = 6.0 height h H = 1.5 b=0. 0.45 0.60 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75 0.9 (m) 3 3.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 10.5 12.0 13.5 15.0 16.5 18.0 19.5 22.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9

H = 10 0.3 0.45 0.6 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.1 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

0.75 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Tabulated depths include the 0.2 m additional depth

17

7/14/2011

[1]

Comparison of Pole Foundation Design Methodologies


Foundation Design Formula Failure Criteria Advantages Disadvantages Comment

[1]

BrinchHansen

Precise calculation 0.5 at tip

Considers: Multi layered soil properties Soils with both friction and cohesion Variable water table Variable bearing widths Based on the ultimate lateral soil resistance of the soils Relatively simple Based on the ultimate lateral soil resistance of the soils Applicable for short and long piles. Considers both fixed and free head restraint Relatively simple Related to Scala penetrometer Simple

Complex, requires soil modelling. Iterative analysis approach required. Considers free head situation only. Stiff clays.

Strength factor of 0.65 appropriate.

Broms

Precise calculation 0.002 to 0.006 radians at ultimate capacity

Cannot be used in complex soils or variable shaft sizes [i.e. non-uniform soils, water table]. Not appropriate for high eccentricity situations. Very conservative. Caters for uniform soils and specific configurations [i.e. directed buried and blocked only]. Based on working stress method and FOS=4

Appropriate for noncohesive and cohesive soils. Broms suggested strength factor of 0.7

AS/ NZS 4676

Empirical formula Appendix L

Unknown

Need to assess soil prior to calculating depth. Based on simplifying assumptions. Applies to firm soil and medium sized conductors (18 mm) associated with free standing intermediate poles up to 150m spans, 24m long poles. FOS = 4.0 Applies to loose sands and larger conductors associated with intermediate poles up to 150m spans. Applies to firm soil and medium, sized conductors (15 mm) associated with intermediate poles up to 120m spans

C(b) 1 pre 1992 [Working Stress Design] C(b) 1 2006 [Limit States] New Zealand

1/10 pole length + 0.6m

2D or 12mm at ground line

1/12 pole length + 1.4m [loose sands] 1/10 pole length + 0.8m Pole length / 6

2D or 12mm at ground line

Simple

Based on working stress method and FOS=3.

Unknown

Simple

Not appropriate for weak soils. Based on working stress method.

Typical Concrete Pole Footings

18

7/14/2011

19

7/14/2011

Wood Pole Foundation Reinforcing (Nailing) Appendix N Cl N7.2.1

Design to be based on propriety systems when installed Estimated 200,000 reinforced wood poles in Australia with potentially questionable strength Needs to be carefully evaluated over time

20

7/14/2011

Tower Foundations Lattice tower footings are typically designed for vertical forces (uplift or compression) combined with horizontal shear forces. Some of the more commonly used foundation capacity calculation methods are presented in Appendix L All are well documented in Cigre TBs, ASCE and other references.

21

7/14/2011

Three basic models

Australian Panel B2 Overhead Lines Seminar AS/NZS 7000:2010 Overhead Line Design Sydney 28 29 March 2011

Straight sided shaft No undercut at base

22

7/14/2011

23

7/14/2011

24

7/14/2011

L5.3 Rock Anchors


Design principle that the applied loads (compression and tension) are being transferred to the soil or foundation material by a number of soil or rock anchors via a load transfer cap. Generally if you can drill the rock, small diameter grouted rock anchors can provide an economical solution. Post-tensioned ground anchor systems can also be used

25

7/14/2011

Failure

mode of anchors is normally associated with the progressive de-bonding of the anchor tendon with increasing load due to elastic extension of the tension tendon

Anchorage capacity is normally based on a shear failure model along the grout column as in Figure L10

26

7/14/2011

L5 GUY ANCHORS L5.1 Cast in situ anchor blocks

Modified Figure L19

Where S1 = LG stan

for Drained Condition and

= cu for Undrained Conditions

27

7/14/2011

28

7/14/2011

L5.2 Bored pier anchors

Normally single tension tendon in soil or rock Anchorage capacity is normally based on a shear failure model along the grout column as in Figure L10

29

7/14/2011

L4.6.4.2 Design of base plates Base plate design should generally be based on ASCE 10-97 recommendations, except when modified by AS 4100 (e.g. shear stress on bolts) and AS 3600 requirements for bolt anchor length.

L4.6.4.3 Design of stubs


Most of the stub axial force is resisted by shear connections. Some force is transferred by bond. The normal method is to provide bolted or welded cleats or studs attached to the lower end of the leg stub in sufficient number and spacing to transfer the total force in shear and bearing Need to check for punching shear under both maximum compression and uplift loads on base slabs

30

7/14/2011

L4.6.2 Deep piled footings


Deep piled foundations are used where weaker soil strata is encountered. Can be based on concrete cast in situ piles, steel driven or screw piles or precast concrete driven pile systems. Piling design and installation should comply with the requirements of AS 2159. The design of the screw piles shafts should be based on Eurocode 4.

Miscllaneous Provisions
L6 FOUNDATION TESTING

Tests of the driven piles and other foundation types can be performed generally in accordance to AS 2159.
L7 CATHODIC PROTECTION

31

7/14/2011

Foundation Performance
Approximate total number of structures in Australia and New Zealand Steel Towers 100,000 Timber Poles 5,100,000 Concrete Poles 450,000 Steel Poles 160,000 Stobie Poles 660,000

Major Failure Events over last 60 yrs


Event Type C Cyclone D- Downdraft T- tornado F- Foundation (Bored -1; mass concrete -2; Grillage -2) FIRE -Fire Storm G -Gale force winds W -Wake Turbulence O- Other (Structural weakness -2; Construction overload-1; Ice/snow/wind -1 ) Number of Events 4 36 4 5 1 4 3 4

32

7/14/2011

Lattice Tower Foundation Failures


Limited number (5 significant events recorded ) very low probability Plus a number of partial failures mainly corroded grillage foundations or older excavated mass concrete with leached concrete.

Distribution pole foundation failures


Estimated that 70% of wood poles were installed during period 1945 and 1965 Localised partial failures (leans) are generally isolated events , but common during heavy seasonal rains, flooding and storms with total failures with debris overload. When footings partially fail most are simply straightened

33

7/14/2011

Questions?

34