ere! Keywords: PAL L270 Transmission Line Towers Project 1493-1 Foundations Final Report Soil Testing February 1983 Foundation Testing Foundation Movement Foundation Design Transmission Line Structure Foundations for Uplift-Compression LoadingTransmission Line Structure Foundations for Uplift‘Compression Loading EL-2870 Research Project 1493-1 Final Report, February 1983 Prepared by CORNELL UNIVERSITY Geotechnical Engineering Group Hollister Hall Ithaca, New York 14853 Principal investigator FH. Kulhawy Coauthors: ©. H, Trautmann J. F, Beech T.D. O'Rourke W. McGuire Subcontractor GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 570 Beatty Road Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146 Coauthors W. A. Wood C. Capano Prepared for Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, California 94304 EPRI Project Manager P.G. Landers Overhead Transmission Lines Program Electrical Systems DivisionORDERING INFORMATION Requests for copies of this report should be directed to Research Reports Center (ARC), Box 50490, Palo Alto, CA 94903, (£15) 965-4081. There is no charge for reports requested by EPRI member utilities and affliates, U.S. utlty associations, U.S. government agencies (Iederal, state, and local), media, and foreign organizations with which EPRI has an information exchange agreement. On request, RAC will send a catalog of EPRI reports CCopyint © 1389 Electe Ramer Rasearch Iai, Ie. Al igh reserved NoTIGE “Ts ono wae prepared ty tn crgarzatons) amas balw as an account of wok sponsored bythe Elecite Power Reseach eu, Ic (EPA) Neha EPRI mamoars cl EPR. the organs) nama elow, no 37 person ating on Hera ofan of mer (a rakes any Warany xpress or plied, wih respec othe use ot Preparea by Comot UneasyABSTRACT This report is a state-of-the-art assessment of foundation engineering for trans~ mission line structures, with particular emphasis on uplift/compression foundation design loads. The scope of this report is broad and includes many aspects of geo- technical, foundation and structural engineering. After presenting the basic analysis/design philosophy, strategies for site characterization are described, Procedures for site reconnaissance, field exploration and laboratory testing fol- Tow. Detailed methodologies are given to evaluate the compression and uplift capa- cities of foundations in sofl, including procedures to predict foundation move- ments, Evaluation of foundations in rock and anchors follows. Load test proce- dures and methods to evaluate load test results are described, with illustrat fons that confirm the design methodologies, The response of transmission line struc- tures to differential foundation movements is presented with examples, and an i7- lustration is given of total structure response to foundation movenents. A summary section is given to provide an overview of the foundation analysis/design methodol- ogy, and the report is concluded with detailed research recomendations. Appen- dices provide further information on several of the topics. A supplemental vo‘ume has also been prepared which includes data on 804 foundation oad tests.EPRI PERSPECTIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lattice toners continue to be the backbone of the electric utility industry's over- head transmission line network. One of the greatest structural uncertaint ies resides with the foundation design, largely because of the wide variety of sof conditions encountered. Unlike other engineered structures, the mode of loading the foundations is unique: uplift loads typically control the design. Also, unlike the design of other types of structures, only limited soil exploration takes place before the design of lattice towers is fixed. This is due to the substantial number of foundations required, the large expanse of terrain traversed, and the widely- varying soil conditions encountered. Many different analytic models have been and are being used throughout the industry to design transmission line structure foundations for uplift-compression loads. Likewise, many different soil exploration techniques are being used, each with varying levels of accuracy and cost effectiveness. The state of the art in both foundation design and soi] exploration has changed so significantly since the development of these earlier techniques that an evaluation of the current state of the art was necessary before a meaningful research project on foundation design could be undertaken; hence, the present project (RP1493-1) was undertaken. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this project was to evaluate the state of the art in the design of uplift-compression transmission line structure foundations and to recon mend more cost-effective and accurate approaches to the industry. Evaluation of tower response to differential foundation movement was also investigated to provide engineers with a better insight into how this movenent affects the load-carrying capacity of typical transmission line towers. PROJECT RESULTS This project resulted in a detailed evaluation of transmission line structure foundation design procedures and soil exploration techniques. A unified model foranalyzing and evaluating foundation designs that is based on actual failure modes of the foundation and surrounding soils rather than on empirically derived relation ships has been developed. The method used to test soils is the single most influen- tial variable. Since emphasis was placed on design philosophy and optimum overall cost effective- ness, the results of this effort are directly applicable to the reliability-based design procedures being developed for transmission lines in other EPRI research projects. With the results of this project, a meaningful research project can now be undertaken to proceed with a full-scale foundation and soil test program to verify the model in a wide range of soil types across the country. Phil Landers, Project Manager Electrical Systens Division viACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report represents the efforts of many people, all of whom the principal inves- tigator wishes to thank for their contributions. Key personnel and their involve- ment have included: Charles H. Trautmann, Cornell (Sections 3-6, Appendix B); John F. Beech, Cornel (Sections 7-12); Thomas 0, O'Rourke, Cornell (Sections 13, 14); William A. Wood, GAI (Section 15); Willian McGuire, Cornell (Section 16, Appendix 0); and Ciro Capano, GAI (Appendix A). The principal investigator has been responsible for the other report sections, all editing and the Final report content. The following consultants have been associated with this project and have served to focus the direction of this effort: John I. Adans, Ontario Hydro; Milton E. Harr, Purdue University; George F. Sovers, Law Engineering Testing Company and Georgia Institute of Technology; and Aleksandar S. Vesié, Duke University. Utility advisors who served in a similar role included: John C. Burton, San Diego Gas and Electric; Bing Chan, Rural Electrification Administration; Malden V. Frank, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporat ion; Donald B. Grime, Southern California Edison Company; Henry P, Holt, Alabama Power Company; Daniel €. Jackman, Omaha Public Power District; Willian R. Kline, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company; Edwin B. Lawless, III, Potomac Electric Power Company; Gerardo A. L6pez-Valadez, Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas; Thomas £. Rodgers, Jr., Virginia Electric and Power Company; and James W. Rustvold, Bonneville Power Administration. In addition, several people served as technical reviewers, critically evaluating drafts of the report. These have included: Anthony M. DiGioia, Jr. and J. Michael Silva, GA; Christina V. Stas, Cornell; John A, Focht, Jr. (Sections 7,8,9) and dames P. Stewart, McClelland Engineers, Inc.; and Janes L. Withiam, D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc. A.M. DiGioia and J. M. Silva also supervised the GAI sub-contract. W. R. Sanbridge drafted the figures and Joanne English typed the text. The EPRI project manager was Phillip G. Landers. viiCONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION Ll Overview of Transmission Line Systems Le Structure Types and Functions 13 Loading 1.6 Foundation Types and Functions 1 Foundation Economics and Reliability 114 Sunmary and Scope of Report 1-16 References 1.17 2 ANALYSIS/DESIGN PHILOSOPHY FOR FOUNDATIONS a4 Node? Reliability a4 Material Property Reliability 22 Construct ion Effects 2-3 Verification of Analysis/Design Methodology 208 Foundation Usage Trends Kithin the Electric Utility Industry 24 Summary 25 References 2-6 3. STRATEGY FOR SITE CHARACTERIZATION 3 Exploration Mode! 31 Decisions Based on Expected Costs 33 Amount of Field Exploration Required 365 Need for Flexibility, Communication and Inspection 36 General Procedure for Exploration Programs 349 Summary 3-11 References 311 4 SITE RECONNATSSANCE 4a Types of Regional Geologic Data 4el Uses of Regional Geologic Data 4-3 Topographic Maps 45 Remote Sensing 4-5 ixSection, Page Aerial Reconnaissance 4-8 Ground Geologic Surveys 4-9 Summary 4-10 References 4-10 5 FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS 5-1 General Planning Considerations 5-1 Drilling and Sampling 5-3 Preliminary Methods 5-3 Detailed Methods 5-5 Classification of Subsurface Materials 5-9 In-Situ Test Methods 5-13, Standard Penetration Test 5-18 Cone Penetration Test 5-23 Vane Shear Test 5-31 Pressureneter Test 5-35 Simple Hand Devices 5-41 Comparison of In-Situ Test Methods 5-44 Permeability Test 5-45 Geophysical Field Methods 5-48 Seismic Refraction 5-48 Electrical Resistivity 5-52 Other Geophysical Field Techniques 5-55 Summary 5-56 References 5-57 6 LABORATORY TESTING 6-1 Index Testing 6-2 Strength Testing 6-5 Compressibility Testing 6-8 Summary 6-9 References 6-9 7 BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS IN SOIL 71 Failure Modes ra General Shear Failure 7-4 Local and Punching Shear Failure 7-6 Rigidity Index 7-8 Other Factors Affecting Bearing Capacity 7-13Section Foundation Shape Inclined and Eccentric Loading Base Tilt and Ground Surface Slope Foundation Depth Influence of Ground Water Table Layered Soils Summary References 8 COMPRESSION CAPACITY OF DEEP FOUNDATIONS IN SOTL Failure Node Tip Resistance Undrained Loading Drained Loading Side Resistance Orained Loading Undrained Loading (« Method) Undrained Loading (8 and 2 Methods) Capacity from In-Situ Tests Influence of Ground Water Table Additional Considerations Summary References 9 UPLIFT CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS IN SOIL Failure Modes Tip Resistance Side Resistance for Shaft-Type Foundations Side Resistance for Spread-Type Foundations Other Methods for Computing Uplift Capacity Cone Method Shear Method Curved Surface Method Bearing Capacity or Cavity Expansion Method Capacity From In-Situ Tests Influence of Ground Water Table Additional Considerations Summary References xi Page, 7-14 7-14 7-16 7-7 7-18 7-19 7-22 7-22 el 81 8-3 8-4 8-5 8-9 8-10 8-14 8-18 8-20 8-23 8-26 8-26 8-26 9-1 9-1 9-5 9-6 9-9 9-11 9-1 9-12 9-13 9-13 9-13 9-13 9-14 9-14 9-15Section Page 10 PREDICTION OF FOUNDATION MOVEMENT IN SOIL 10-1 Settlement of Shallow, Spread-Type Foundations 10-3 Elastic Settlenent 10-3 Consolidation Settlement. 10-6 Secondary Settlement 10-11 Settlement from In-Situ Tests 10-12 Settlement of Deep, Shaft-Type Foundat ions 10-13 Uplift Movement of Foundations 10-16 Compression vs. Uplift Behavior 10-16 Uplift Movement of Deep, Shaft-Type Foundations 10-17 Uplift Movement of Shallow, Spread-Type Foundat ions 10-20 Influence of Ground Water Table 10-20 Interrelationship of Foundation Movement and Capacity 10-20 Summary 10-21 References 10-21 11 FOUNDATIONS IN ROCK il Geologic Considerations il Selection of Design Bearing Stress ie Settlement of Foundations on Rock 5 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Rock 11-6 Compression Capacity of Socketed Foundations Lge Uplift Capacity of Socketed Foundations lz Summary Alz References 11-13 12 ANCHORS: 12-1 Types of Anchors 12-1 Failure Modes 12-6 Pullout Capacity of Spread Anchors 12-8 Pullout Capacity of Helix Anchors 12-10 Pullout Capacity of Grouted Anchors in Soil 12-11 Pullout Capacity of Grouted Anchors in Rock 12-13 Prediction of Anchor Movement. 12-14 Additional Considerations 12-14 Summary 12-15 References 12-15 xiiSect ion Page 13. LOAD TEST EVALUATION 13-1 Basic Considerations 13-1 Load Test Procedures 13-3 Criteria for Load Test Selection 13-7 Load Test Summaries 13-9 Influence of Construction on Foundat ion Performance 13-9 Summary 13-16 References 13-18 14 INTERPRETATION OF UPLIFT LOAD TEST RESULTS 14-1 Determination of Uplift Capacity fron Field Load Tests 14-1 Total Stress Analysis for Drilled Shaft Uplift Capacity 14-5 Effective Stress Analysis for Drilled Shaft Uplift Capacity 7 Analysis of Grillage Uplift Capacity 14-8 Summary 14-10 References 14-12 15 RESPONSE OF TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURES TO DIFFERENTIAL FOUNDATION MOVEMENT 15-1 General Movenent Criteria in Current Use 15-1 Survey of Transmission Line Structure Foundation Movements 15-3 Foundation Movement Load Cases 15-5 Structure Behavior in Response to Foundation Movement 15-7 Structure Analysis 15-10 Analysis Results 15-13 Summary 15-20 References 15-20 16 COLLAPSE RESISTANCE AND TOTAL STRUCTURE RESPONSE 16-1 Background 16-1 Literature Review 16-2 Sample Structure Calculations 16-5 Summary 16-11 References 16-11 17 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS/DESIGN METHODOLOGY Wl General Procedures 1-1 Factor of Safety and Limiting Movenents 4 18 RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS 18-1 General 18-1 xiiiSection ‘APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX Evaluation of Ground Conditions Foundation Analysis/Design Structure Analysis/Design Construction Operations Total System Evaluation Summary A EVALUATION OF FOUNDATION TYPE USAGE EPRI Utility Questionnaire Evaluation of Results Single Pole and Two-Legged Structures Summary 8 SOURCES OF RECONNAISSANCE DATA Sources of Regional Geologic Data Topographic Maps Renote Sensing References © IN-SITU STRESSES Stress Path Variations Sample Computat fon Practical Implications References ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR PAPERS ON TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURES AND FOR RESEARCH ON TRANSMISSION LINE STRUC- TURE STRENGTH xiv Page, 18-1 18-3 18-5 18-7 18-8 18-9 Al Al a3 All ALL Bl Bel Bla 8-20 8-23 cl cl C5 c-5 C6 DlILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1-1 Simplified Flow Chart for Transmission Line Design 1-2 Lattice Toner Structure and Foundation Loads 1-3 Single Pole Structure and Foundation Loads 1-4 Framed Structures and Foundation Loads 1-5 Guyed Structures 1-6 Illustrative Foundation 3-1 Cost vs. Level of Exploration 3+2 Cost Conponents for Field Exploration Techniques 343 Optimization of Exploration by Comparison with Penalty Costs 3:4 Penalty Costs for Underexplored or Overexplored Sites 3:5 Flow Diagran for Geotechnical Aspects of Transaission Line Engineering 5-1 Iwan Hand Auger 52 Dynamic Cone Penetroneter 5-3 Chopping Bits 5-4 Continuous Fltght Augers 5-5 Auger Cutter Heads and Nomenclature 5-6 Driven Sanplers 5-7 Thin Wall Samplers: 5-8 Core Barrels 5-9 Unified Soil Classification Chart 5-10 Field Identification Procedures for Fine-Grained Soils 5-11 Example Test Boring Log xv 5-6 5-7Figure 5-12 5-17 5-18 5-19 5-20 5-21 5-22 5-23 5-24 5-25 5-26 61 6-2 Tl 7-3 74 15 1-7 7-8 1-9 7-10 7A Driving Sampler for Standard Penetration Test Correlations of N Values with Sand Parameters Electric Friction Cone Penetroneter Tip Mechanical (Begemann) Friction Cone Penetroneter Tip Relationship Between Tip Bearing, Side Friction and Particle Size for Mechanical Friction Cone Penetrometers Comparison of Soil Profiles by CPT and Drilling and Sampling Comparison of Mechanical and Electric Cones Typical Shear Vanes Schematic of Pressuremeter Operation Section of PAF 72 Self Boring Pressureneter Typical Pressureneter Curve Simple Hand Devices Test Cost vs. Accuracy Seismic Refraction Exploration Electrical Resistivity Exploration Atterberg Limits of Soils Typical Relationships Between Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index General Description of Bearing Capacity Modes of Bearing Capacity Failure Bearing Capacity Factors for Shallow Foundat ions Assumed Failure Mode for Bell Solution Critical Rigidity Index Rigidity Factors, cq, © Se Rigidity Factor, Co, Inclined and Eccentric Loading Tilted Foundation Base and Sloping Ground Surface Ideatized Two Layer Soil Profiles Modified Bearing Capacity Factor, Nm Page. 5-19 5-21 5-26 5-26 5-28 5-28 5-31 5-33 5-36 5-38 5-38 5-42 5-46 5-49 5-54 6-4Figure 8-2 8-3 8-4 8-5 8-6 87 8-9 8-10 8-11 8-12 9-1 9-2 9-3 9-4 9-5 9-6 9-7 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 General Description of Deep Foundat ion Illustrative Load Displacement Curves for Drilled Shaft Modified N, Bearing Capacity Factor for Deep Foundations in Undrained Loading Modified N, Bearing Capacity Factor for Deep Foundations in Drained Loading Modified N, Bearing Capacity Factor for Deep Foundations in Drained Loading Approximate Tip Ultimate Bearing Capacity for Deep Foundations in Sand Example Illustrating Principles of Side Resistance in Sand Adhesion Factor vs. Undrained Shear Strength for Piles Adhesion Factor for Piles Driven into Clay Adhesion Factor vs. Plasticity Index Strength Representation of Clays A Coefficient for Driven Pipe Piles General Description of Shaft-Type Foundation in Uplift Development of Shear Surface Adjacent to Foundat ion Development of Cone Failure for Shafts in Uplift Idealized Uplift Failure of Deep Spread-Type Foundation Construction Variations with Spread-Type Foundations Illustration of Poisson Effect Common Uplift Capacity Models Foundation Settlement Response Elastic Settlement of Flexible Foundation on Soil of Infinite Depth Typical Consolidation Settlement Behavior Sample Soil Stress Computation Reduction Factor for Consolidation Settlement Terzaghi One-Dimensional Consolidation Solution Chart for Proportioning Footings on Sand for 1 inch Settlement Elastic Load Transfer to Foundation Tip xvii 8-9 8-12 8-16 8-16 8-17 8-19 8-21 9-2 9-3 9-3 9-5 9-7 9-12 10-1 10-4 10-7 10-7 10-10 10-11 10-13 10-15Figure 10-9 10-10 11-1 11-2 3 4 ues Compression vs. Uplift Behavior Uplift Movement Influence Factor Rock Foundation Contact Problems Allowable Contact Stress on Jointed Rock Bearing Capacity Failure Modes Wedge Bearing Capacity Factors Bearing Capacity Factor for Open Joints Correction Factor for Discontinuity Spacing Socketed Rock Foundation Bond Strength of Rock Sockets Frictional Load Transfer in Elastic Rock Typical Anchors Direct Embednent Spread Anchor Helix Anchors Grouted Anchors Anchored Spread Foundation General Description of Uplift Behavior Idealized Uplift Failure Modes Inclined Spread Anchor General Procedures for Applying Uplift Forces in Load Tests Load Test Sunmary Sheet Comparison of As-Built with AS-Designed Shaft Dimensions Comparison of Grillage Response with Tamped and Untanped Backfi11 Methods of Interpreting Uplift Load Test Data Computed vs. Measured Uplift Capacity for Total Stress Analysis of Drilled Shafts Computed vs. Measured Uplift Capacity for Effective Stress Analysis of Drilled Shafts Computed vs, Measured Uplift Capacity for Grillages xviii Page 10-17 10-18, 11-3 14 1-6 u-7 1-8 1-8 1-10 1-10 elt 12-2 12-3 12-3 12-5 12-5 12-7 12-7 12-9 13-6 13-10 13-15 13-15 14-3 14-6 1-9 14-11Figure 15-1 15-2 15-3 15-4 1545 5-6 15-7 5-8 16-1 16-2 16-3 6-4 Wa 17-1b Ae hee he het Aes a6 Ae? AB An9 A-10 cl c-2 Foundation Movenent Load Cases Structure Response to Foundation Movement, Representation of Movement Load Cases Structures Selected for Analysis Percentage of Calculated Ultimate Capacity for Structure 1 Load Cases Percentage of Calculated Ultimate Capacity for Structure 2 Load Cases Percentage of Calculated Ultimate Capacity for Structure 3 Load Cases Percentage of Calculated Ultimate Capacity for Structure 4 Load Cases Typical Menber Force-Displacement Relationships Nenber Force Levels Force Redistribution at 1.97 Inch Foundation Displacement Force Variation in Selected Compression Members Flow Chart for Foundation Preliminary Evaluation Flow Chart for Foundation Uplift/Compression Design EPRI Quest fonnaire Location of Utilities Responding to EPRI Questionnaire Location of Utilities Included in Test Data Evaluation Utility Mileage Distribution for Four-Legged Towers Foundation Types by Mileage for Four-Legged Towers Regional Divisions Regional Distribution of Foundation Types by Mileage for Four-Legged Towers, Telephone Survey Participants Foundation Types by Mileage for Single Poles Foundat ion Types by Mileage for Two-Legged Frames Index Map of Nuclear Power Reactors in the United States Soil Element In-Situ Stress Paths for Simple Stress Histories xix A-8 A-10 A-12 A-12 8-13 2 c-2Table La 12 2d 22 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 5-11 5-12 5-13 ra 7-2 1-3 8-1 8-2 8-3 TABLES Typical Line Cost Estimates Typical Line Cost by Components, Variability of Some Soil Properties Results of EPRI Questionnaire for Four-Legged Towers Check List of Test Boring Information Needed Information Needed for Soi] Description Information Needed for Rock Description Properties of Soils vs. SPT N Values Sources of Error in the Standard Penetration Test Sources of Error in the Cone Penetration Test Sources of Error in the Vane Shear Test Typical Values of Pressuremeter Modulus and Limit Pressure Assessment of In-Situ Tests Relative Permeability of Some Earth Materials Typical Seismic Velocities Typical Electrical Resistivities Borehole Geophysical Methods Bearing Capacity Factors Typical Values of Poisson's Ratio Typical Values of Rigidity Index Interface Friction Angles Horizontal Soil Stress Coefficients Stress Transfer Factors, x xxi Page 1-15 1-16 2-3 25 5-15 5-16 5-17 5-20 5-24 5-30 5-34 5-39 5-45 5-47 5-50 5-54 5-56 7-9 7-9 all 8-14 8-23Drilled Shaft Dianeters as Installed in Various Types of Ground Horizontal Soil Stress Coefficients Elastic Shape and Rigidity Factor Typical Values of Cy Typical Ranges of Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Parameters Helix Anchor Coefficients Horizontal Stress Coefficient, K, for Grouted Anchors Sunmary of Information and Objectives of Load Tests Load Tests Summarized in the Supplemental Volume Sunmary of Construction Effects on Foundation Performance Comparative Summary of the Effects of Foundation Construction Naximum Permissible SettTenent Public Inquiry Offices of the U.S. Geological Survey Addresses of State Geological Survey Offices Status and Availability of State Geologic Maps Geological Societies in the U.S, Canada and Mexico Page, 8-25 9-10 10-4 10-16 10-19 12-11 12-13 13-8 13-11 13-13 13-17 15-3LIST OF SYMBOLS ENGLISH LETTERS ~ UPPER CASE A = foundation area ay = reduced effective area Acige 7 Surface area of the side of the foundation Arip ~ area of foundation tip 8 - foundation width or dianeter 8 = reduced foundation width or diameter c = menber compressive force CysCp = constants cy - correction factor Ce = compression index CesC, - empirical coefficients Cy, —~_-untoad-reload index Cy = coefficient of secondary settlenent D = foundation depth E - elastic modulus E = concrete modulus = elastic modulus of foundation material - pressuremeter modulus = rock modulus = rock mass modulus = elastic modulus of soil Ee = tangent modulus 6 = shear modulusrock slab thickness height of compressible soil height of drainage path current, rigidity index critical rigidity index reduced rigidity index influence coefficient bearing capacity correction factor coefficient of horizontal soil stress foundation stiffness factor Rankine minimum active stress coefficient in-situ coefficient of horizontal soil stress K, for normally consolidated sof during virgin loading K, for primary reloading Ky for primary unloading Rankine maximum passive stress coefficient foundation length reduced foundation Tength Vquidity index standard penetration test value; vertical component of inclined load bearing capacity factor for cohesion bearing capacity factor for jointed rock modified bearing capacity factor bearing capacity factor for overburden bearing capacity factor for friction overconsolidation ratio (3, /%,) max maximum OCR perimeter of foundat ion xxivPL ENGLISH = plasticity index = load = applied compressive load = side resistance in compression ~ side resistance in uplift = tip resistance in compression ~. tip resistance in uplift - applied uplift load = maximum uplift load = rock quality designation - failure ratio = stress level; column spacings joint spacing = horizontal component of inclined load; member tensile force = percent consolidation - voltage = weight of foundation and enclosed soi1 = weight of foundation - effective weight of foundation LETTERS - LOWER CASE - electrode spacing = cohesion - adhesion = coefficient of consolidation - void ratio - eccentricity in B direction - eccentricity in L direction = initial void ratio = unit side resistance xxvcompressive strength of concrete cone penetroneter side Friction coefficient of permeability menber length, distance constant modulus exponent atmospheric pressure pressureneter limit pressure surcharge yo) allowable contact stress cone penetrometer tip resistance net bearing capacity uniaxial compressive strength ultimate bearing capacity foundation radius suction stress tensile strength undrained shear strength mean undrained shear strength time; sean thickness radial thickness of structural material seismic velocity Liquid limit natural water content plastic limit shrinkage Timit depth xxviGREEK LETTERS - UPPER CASE a ae ae au ao a0 ‘a bcp t average volunetric strain; foundation movenent change in void ratio change in menber length excess pore water stress applied stress axial stress applied to foundation horizontal stress change in soil time factor GREEK LETTERS - LOWER CASE angle of base tilt; adhesion or reduction factor modulus reduction factor side resistance coefficient K tan 6 shape and rigidity factor unit weight effective unit weight moist unit weight submerged unit weight angle of friction for soil-concrete interface modification factor, doubly subscripted, for bearing capacity terms angle of load inclination angle of load eccentricity modulus number empirical coefficient reduction factor Poisson's ratio Poisson's ratio for concrete Poisson's ratio of foundation material xxviiPoisson's ratio for rock Poisson's ratio of soil empirical coefficient specific resistivit; friction ratio for cone penetrometer (F, consolidation sett Tement elastic settlement average elastic settlement centerline elastic settlement edge elastic settlement settlement by axial deformation of foundation material secondary settlement total sett Tenent settlenent of tip fron shaft side friction load settlenent of tip fron tip load uplift movenent stress major principal stress rninor principal stress applied butt stress final vertical effective stress horizontal effective stress initial vertical effective stress preconsolidat ion stress stress at foundation tip vertical effective stress mean vertical effective stress stress in shaft shearing resistance bond strength angle of friction waveffective stress angle of friction socket angle of friction stress transfer factor variable angle of ground surface xxixSUMMARY This report is the result of a major research effort to define the state-of-the-art of foundation engineering for electrical transmission line structures, with partic- ular enphasis on uplift/compression foundation design loads. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) recognized that there is a wide variability in practice, from site evaluation to design methodology. Because of this variability, a criti- cal evaluation was necessary so that electric utility engineers can adopt design methodologies and procedures which are more representative of the current state-of- the-art. In the process, significant economies and more realistic levels of relia~ bility should be achieved. Although mich information and data exist, they are fragmented, scattered and un- evaluated critically, and the state-of-the-art is not commonly used in practice. To renedy these shortcomings, EPRI initiated this study. The primary goals of this study were to: 1. evaluate procedures for characterizing site conditions 2. investigate techniques for evaluating soil and rock parameters for use in design 3. determine the uplift/compression load-displacenent response and fail- ure mechanisms for the range of foundation systens employed within the industry 4. establish the relative importance of foundation-structure interaction during the design process 5. identify technological gaps in the state-of-the-art and recommend a cost-effective research progran In fulfilling these objectives, the available literature has been synthesized. In addition, a number of new and integrated concepts have been proposed to replace the existing practice of selecting particular, and often arbitrary, models for specific design conditions. These results are summarized in this volume. A supplemental volume has also been prepared which presents an extensive reference of foundation s1Toad test data to assist the designer in evaluating particular ground conditions and foundation types. SITE CHARACTERIZATION In characterizing sites, it is important to have a basic underlying philosophy, as well as a strategy, to optimize the field information. Rational procedures have been outlined which address these points, with particular emphasis on cost-effec- tiveness, reliability and maximization of information. Principally it is a deci- sion model based on expected costs and benefits. In conjunction with this model, the need for flexibility, communication, field supervision, and proper considera~ tion of construction factors is stressed. SITE EVALUATION Techniques for site reconnaissance and investigation have been reviewed in detail, concentrating on the procedures, their advantages and disadvantages, and their costs and reliabilities. These sections describe the general usefulness of the techniques and the type of data that can be obtained for design use. These data are very important for rational design. FOUNDATION ANALYSTS/DESIGN Six major sections of the report present in detail the procedures for the analysis/ design of foundations subjected to uplift/compression loads. Conceptually, a single “cylindrical shear model is applicable to all of the foundation systems included, with specified constraints or limits that are a function of foundation ‘type, mode of loading or construction procedure, This consistent framework allows more efficient design. Two related sections of the report assess full-scale field load tests, both as verification of the analysis/design methodology and as a technique for evaluating foundation response in new or different ground conditions. FOUNDATION-STRUCTURE INTERACTION Current practice in the industry is to use simplified structural design procedures and to disregard, or minimize the importance of, differential foundation movenents. Analyses presented in this report illustrate that foundation movements may be of some concern and should not be disregarded, Qualitative results also illustrate that refined analyses, taking into account total nonlinear structure response, lead to a more comprehensive evaluation of structural response. 5-2RESEARCH NEEDS The studies described previously have identified the technological gaps in the state-of-the-art, Based on this work, a research program has been outlined. The major recommended directions include: (1) comparative assessment and improvement of site investigation techniques, (2) refinement of foundation design models, pri- marily through a comprehensive and well-documented field load testing program, (3) improvements in nonlinear computer codes, with adequate experimental verifica- tion, which address the unique aspects of transmission line structures, (4) quanti. fication of the poorly understood construction variables and their influence on foundation and structure behavior, and (5) analytical and experimental studies to evaluate the performance of the total structure-foundat ion-soil system. CONCLUSIONS As a result of this study, available knowledge on foundation engineering for trans~ mission line structures subject to uplift/compression loads has been collected, synthesized and presented within a consistent framework. Much of the presentation represents new ideas and data, developed specifically for this state-of-the-art evaluation. This information is presented to assist engineers in the analysis, design and con- struction of cost-effective foundation systens for transmission line structures. 5-3Section 1 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of a major research effort, sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), to provide a state-of-the-art assessnent of foundation engineering for electrical transmission Tine stractures. The partic- ular enphasis is on uplift/conpression foundation design Toads. Although many textbooks and a great deal of resource information on foundation engineering have been developed over the years, the majority have been focused pri- marily on the foundation problems of structures such as buildings and bridges. This emphasis has limited their usefulness to the electric utility industry for several reasons. First, uplift is often the controlling foundation design load for a variety of transmission line structures, while it typically is of lesser conse~ quence for buildings and bridges. Second, foundation sites for transmission line structures are rarely investigated with the sane Tevel of sophistication and detail as is routinely done at building and bridge sites. Third, identical structures may be utilized at many sites along a given route, with the only variable being the foundation conditions. And fourth, there is generally no human occupancy or threat to life with a transmission line structure, except during construction, maintenance or repair. These differences result in a different philosophy of foundation engineering within the electric utility industry which is not addressed in standard references. For example, in typical textbooks on foundation engineering, uplift problens are dis- cussed only in passing, and grillages are rarely mentioned. Many other examples could be cited. This report was written to provide a state-of-the-art docunent on foundation engi- neering for the electric utility industry. The report is developed in several parts: (1) introduction and overview, (2) site characterization and evaluation of ground conditions, (3) analysis and design for uplift /compression foundation loads, (4) foundation-structure interaction and (5) research needs to improve the state- of-the-art, The remainder of this section introduces the subject matter and con- cludes with a discussion of the scope of the report. IOVERVIEW OF TRANSMISSION LINE SYSTEMS Transmission lines are linear systems composed principally of three conponents: fs overhead lines, including the conductors, overhead ground wires, hardware, etc. structures which support the overhead lines at discreet points in-situ soi] and rock which support each structure through a foundation During the planning, analysis and design of a transmission line, these components interact directly so that any significant change in one is likely to i others. uence the Optimization is the rule to produce an efficient and economical system. Many considerations enter into the design process for a transmission line. Among the more important are: ao electrical characteristics =-operating voltage of the line -nunber, type and configuration of the lines s-average and peak loads to be transmitted routing considerations =-substat ions =-physical features, both natural and man-made --environmental features, e.g., wetlands, refuge areas --farming and range lands --developments, e.g., urban, industrial, recreational --mining areas --aesthetics s-special features, e.g., cultural resources Jocal climatic conditions ~-temperature --wind velocity ice ~-adverse atmospheric conditions, e.g., fog, smoke geologic environment. =-site geology =-soil and rock conditions ~-groundwater =-seismicity 1-2While this list is only illustrative, it serves to show the range of considerations involved in the design process. Figure 1-1 shows a simplified flow chart for transmission line design, which in- cludes the considerations listed above. Usually the end points of a transmission Vine are determined based upon a study of the needs at one location and the poner availability at another. The line voltage is established after a study to deter- mine the most efficient means of transmission. Line routing follows, taking into account electrical, routing, climatic and geologic conditions. The conductors are selected to meet electrical and climatic requirements, and some routing considera tions. Structure design and siting follows, with loading determined by the con- ductors and climatic conditions, as well as certain routing, topographic and geo- logic characteristics. The foundations then are designed from the structure loads and the geologic conditions. After design, the system is constructed. Economic, environmental and reliability considerations enter at al levels. As shown in Figure 1-1, any one step in the process may influence another. For example, poor soil conditions can alter the selection of structure sites, and unex- pected soil conditions encountered during construction may require changes in the foundations. Other examples could be cited. The point to be made is that these interactions dictate an optimization process which should minimize the total ine stalled or life-cycle cost for a required level of reliability. This interplay must be considered at all times during the planning, analysis and design of a transmission line system. To the best of our knowledge, there is no document which treats, in detail, all of the components illustrated in Figure 1-1. Sone well-known references enphasize structure siting and conductor design, and include some aspects of structure design (e.g., 1, 2), while others enphasize structure design (e.9., 3, 4, 5, 6). This report focuses on foundation design, its interaction with construction, and its influence on structure design. STRUCTURE TYPES AND FUNCTIONS A wide variety of transmission line structures have been developed to satisfy the requirenents of the electric utility industry, Different directions have been taken by different utilities in response to local needs and concerns, time-variant stimuli (e.9., suppliers, materials improvements, aesthetic and environmental con- siderations, etc.}, and the imagination of the designer. Accordingly, a potpourri of designs and terminology have evolved. 1-3Establishment of line voltage +}—> t—>| Line routing | Conductor design *—) economic Environmental and 4 Reliability [> Structure design ls + considerations and siting Foundation design Construction Figure 1-1. Simplified Flow Chart for Transmission Line Desicn 14From a functional standpoint, there are three primary categories of structures: (2) suspension, (2) strain, and (3) dead-end, The differentiation between then is made principally on the basis of their function in the Tine, the line angle at the structure, and the insulator configuration. 1. Suspension Structure This type of structure is used in line sections between strain or dead-end structures. The conductors are supported by insulator assemblies which permit the equalization of conductor tensions in the longitudinal direction, The line angles for these structures typically are Tight to perhaps medium. Normally these structures are the lightest, least expensive and most common ina line. The commonly used term, tangent structure, refers to a very Tight angle suspension structure. 2 Strain Structure With a strain structure, the conductors are terminated and attachec on both sides by a dead-end or strain assembly, where the insul- ators are in mechanical series with the conductors and must carry the conductor tensions. The structures are designed to be loaded on two sides, except for the temporary one-sided loading during construction. These structures normally are used for medium or heavy line angle positions or to separate line positions. 3 Dead-End Structure A dead-end structure is used most conmonly at a line termination, where the conductors are terminated and attached on one side by 2 dead-end or strain assembly. These structures are designed to be loaded on one side only, and therefore would be the heaviest, most expensive and least common structures in a line. When economic questions relating to standardization and fabrication are considered, it is often found that the sane type of structure can be employed efficiently at both dead-end and heavy angle strain positions, as well as for special applications such as Tong crossings. Structure type will also be significantly influenced by the line voltage, number of circuits (single or double) and phase configuration (horizontal, vertical or del- ta). Increasing line voltages or number of circuits require larger structures. Similarly horizontal or vertical phase configurations require, respectively, wider or taller structures. Consideration of the above factors, as well as those noted in the previous section, has led to a large number of different types of structures which may be grouped in the following manner: (1) lattice towers, (2) single shaft structures, (3) franed structures, and (4) guyed structures. This grouping was suggested by the IEEE/ASCE 15Joint Committee (7) because it leads directly to a differentiation in terms of the mode of foundation loading. It should be noted that many variations exist within these categories; furthermore, different materials options exist as well, such as wood, steel, concrete, aluminum and fiberglas. lL LOADING Lattice Towers (Figure 1-2) Lattice towers are essentially four-legged pinned structures which are commonly constructed of angle members. Common variations in- clude waist and portal configurations. With this type of struc- ture, the loads at the foundation are composed of vertical tension or compression and horizontal shear components. Single Shaft Structures (Figure 1-3) Single shaft, or pole, structures are single elenent systems below the cross-arm level. "They have one foundation which must be de- signed for vertical, horizontal and torsional loads, as well as Jarge overturning moments. Framed Structures (Figure 1-4) Framed structures derive their stability, in part, from the noment- resisting capabilities of one or more joints. Common variations include four-legged and two-legged (H) franes which could be un- braced, braced or internally guyed. The foundations must be de- signed for vertical and horizontal loads, in addition to overturn- ing moments. One or more foundation connections may be pinned to eliminate the moments at the pinned foundation. Guyed Structures (Figure 1-5) Guyed structures derive their stability from tensioned guy wires supporting one or more rigid structural shafts. Many variations of the principle are used, including V, H, Y and delta conf igura- tions. The shaft foundation connection’ is’ pinned and the foundation is designed for vertical compression and horizontal loads. The quy foundations are designed for axial tension and horizontal loads. Guys are also used in combination with the other three structure types to assist in carrying the foundation loads, particulary at dead-end or heavy line angle positions, and to provide additional capacity for upgrading existing structures, Transmission line structures are designed for a large nunber of load cases. The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), as well as other safety codes adopted in some states, contain safety rules for the design, installation and maintenance of transmission line systems. Contained within these codes are minimum specified loading conditions for wind, ice and construction loads (€.g., 8).FERC Horizontal wind force component Dead weight plus ice load Downward force ‘on foundation | Shear force on foundation uplift on foundation Lattice tower (four-legged) structures Typical loads acting on lattice tower foundations Figure 1-2. Lattice Tower Structure and Foundation Loads 1-7~ force component Dead weight | plus ice load Vertical downward load on foundation Moment acting on foundation Shear force on foundation Single pole structure Typical loads acting on foundations for single shaft structures Figure 1-3. Single Pole Structure and Foundation Loads 1-8eee Ar ae pest Rr oOmnr 4 re AP Pinned Aer 1 Cable or X-broce N N +t ye 4 H- Structures A 3 ee oy Typical loads acting on foundations fer two legged frame structures Figure 1-4, Franed Structures and Foundation Loads Guyed ¥ AA. AL Suyed 0.6 Guyed Oeite Choinette Figure 1-5. Guyed Structures 1-9The periodic issue of these codes reflects advances in the state-of-the-art, as well as accunulated experiences. Most utilities use these codes as their starting points in developing their own agenda of loading cases, which reflect their local conditions and experiences. Recent studies (9, 10) have shown a large variability in design practice for loadings within the industry. This variation reflects more efficient design for local conditions. The loading can be separated into four major categories (7): 1. Steady-state loads, which are imposed on a structure for a long continuous period of time. Examples include: --dead weight of the structure, conductors and overhead ground wires =-horizontal loads because of a line angle --differential conductor tension =-conductor dead-end --unbalanced loads caused by broken conductors 2. Transient loads, which are imposed on a structure for a short period of time.” Examples include: wind loads on the structures and lines stringing loads caused by conductor hang-up unbalanced Toads caused by ice shedding earthquakes 3 Construction loads, which are imposed during structure erection and Tine installation. Examples include: horizontal shear Toads on a foundation in tilt-up construction dead-end loading during line installation 4 Maintenance loads, which are imposed during line maintenance. Many of these loads are well understood and can be computed accurately and reli- ably. Others are not as well understood; in these cases, the results of recent re- search (e.g., 11) must be incorporated for more reliable determination of the Toads. Considerable care and engineering judgment must be exercised during the design pro- cess for applying these loads to the structures and foundations. With the typi- cally large nunber of loading cases and line angles to consider, different combina- tions may control for different structures or foundations. Accordingly all pos sible combinations need to be examined.Special caution is warranted for foundation design because of several reasons. Foundations respond differently to steady-state and transient (including construc tion and maintenance) loads. Depending on the specific soil characteristics and ‘the duration of the transient loads, the foundation soil response may be either drained or undrained. For example, 2 clay will exhibit drained response to steady- state loads, but undrained response to transient loads. Different soil paraneters are required for these different cases. In addition, different factors of safety, or levels of reliability, are used for these cases so it is critical to define the specific loads that the foundation mist respond to, separately with respect to time duration and without overload factors included. A further point which is often minimized is the effect of differential foundation movements on the loads in the structure. This point is not normally considered in the design of the structure. However, as will be shown later in this report, this phenonenon can lead to significant structural loads which may adversely affect the performance of certain types of structures. A final point of considerable importance is the general design philosophy to be adopted, i.e., should the foundation be stronger than, or the sane strength as, the structure? For example, one utility may desire to have the foundation stronger than the structure so that, if an extreme Inading event causes the failure of a structure, it can be replaced on the sane foundations with a minimum delay. A second utility may design so that the entire structure-foundat ion-soil system functions at the same level of reliability for all loading cases. Both approaches are viable and defensible. However, the different approaches will consciously and subconsciously influence the manner in which loads are considered and foundations are designed. FOUNDATION TYPES AND FUNCTIONS Foundations are the transition elements between the transmission line structures and the in-situ soil or rock. They are, in many respects, analogous to the insula tors which provide the transition between the conductors and the structure. Insulators have to be designed for a variety of loadings, on the basis of Tine- specific characteristics. Foundations, on the other hand, have to be designed for a variety of loadings, on the basis of site-specific characteristics. The site- specific characteristics are more difficult to define. Figure 1-6 illustrates a foundation which appears to be a simple component to design. However, many factors must be considered to develop a foundation which nnFoundation or rock Figure 1-6, Illustrative Foundation will perform satisfactorily. These are described below: Geologic environment The geologic environment provides the starting point. Included within this category is the basic site geology, the soil and rock conditions, the in-situ state of stress and the groundwater conditions. Loading characteristics The various types of loadings were described previously and are shown in Figure 1-6 in the most general sense, As illustrated, there may be vertical loads in the z direction, horizontal loads in the x and y directions, overturning moments in’the 2-y and z Planes, and a torsional moment in the x-y plane. The key variables with respect to foundation design are the magnitude, rate and fre- quency of loading, as well as the attitude and eccentricity of Joading. Foundation characteristics In this category are the size, shape and weight of the foundation.Foundation response This category describes how the foundation responds to load, which determines the method of analysis. First to be considered is the potential failure surface that the foundation will exhibit, and how this may vary with depth, This surface, which can take various forms, influences how the load is transferred to the soil or rock, to be’ supported in side friction and/or end bearing. The actual load distribution will also determine the deformation response, which will be a function of the properties of the soil or rock, and the foundation structural material. Soil or rock response factors How the soil or rock responds to load is a direct function of their strength and deformation properties for the type of loading imposed (i.e., steady-state, transient, cyclic), The pore water stress re- sponse must be evaluated because this will determine whether the behavior is drained or undrained. Construction procedure The effects of construction are very important because they may control the ultimate performance of the foundation system. Sloppy construction practices and poor backfilling will adversely affect the foundation performance; the reverse will increase the capacity of the foundation and minimize its movements under load. In response to the many variables involved, a wide variety of different types of foundations have evolved. These can be categorized as below: 1. Spread foundations This type of foundation has large rectangular plan dimensions, is placed in a shallow excavation, and then is backfilled. The two main variations are the footing, which fs constructed of cast-in- place concrete, and the grillage, which is prefabricated steel. One footing or grillage is commonly used for each structure leg. Driven piles Piles are long, slender foundation elements which are driven into the soil by mechanical means. They may be steel, precast concrete, wood or composites of these. Piles normally are not used singly to constitute a foundation; two or more are driven to create a closely-spaced group, which is then structurally integrated through a cast=in-place concrete pile cap. Drilled shafts This type of foundation is constructed by augering a cylindrical hole into the ground and backfilling it with concrete to constitute the drilled shaft. The shaft may be belled in appropriate soils. A single shaft normally is used as the foundation for each struc- ture leg.