Tipologia e dimensionamento
topography and geology of
estrutural das fundações de
Torres de Linhas de Alta Tensão
em diferentes condições
geotécnicas
Typology and structural design
of High Tension Electric Lines
foundations for different
geotechnical conditions
Ana Raquel Pereira Afonso
IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon,
Portugal
Key Words: Foundations, High tension
electric line, Footing, Nailing, Pad and
chimney
October 2015
Introduction
With the cities’ development, the need of
producing and transporting electric energy to
the population center has become critical.
This energy needs to be transported by high
tension electric lines.
It has a great importance in development
of economics activities, which causes a
constantly evolution of technics, material
and equipment (Decreto Regulamentar
nº1/92 de 18 de Fevereiro).
The construction of the line depends on
ground
foundation. The position and distance
between towers depends on topography as
well as other factors. The tower foundation
depends on topography too, and geologic
composition of foundation ground.
A large number of investigations to the
ground foundation are very important to a
better characterization of the soil. A
complete characterization of soil samples
allows the optimization of the choice of the
type of foundation and respective design.
The need is therefore identified to
systematize the methods of design of each
type of foundation for each type of soil.
The main types of foundation are:
isolated footing, nailing and pad and
chimney foundation with circular and
rectangular section.
For the design of foundations the code
Regulamento de Segurança de Linhas
Eléctricas de Alta Tensão (Decreto
Regulamentar nº1/92 de 18 de Fevereiro) [1]
can be used, where safety coefficients and
some parameters related to soils are
defined.
The present study discusses the design
methods based in principles of stability using
coefficients and parameters present in this
code and other methods from studies of the
soil-foundation interaction behavior,
including Sulzberger, Clouterre and Biarez
and Barraud.
1
 Case of study The chosen tower (A60D2) for design
has the loading described in Table. This
This present study has the description of
tower has a greater height and demanding
the calculation methods of foundations and
loading.
the design of foundations for real samples of
soil with a chosen tower.

Table 1 – 460D2 Tower loading

A60D2

Shear force Shear force

Tower Tension T Compression C
height (m) (kN) Long Vl,T Trans Vt,T (kN) Long Vl,C Trans Vt,C
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

30 1533,15 169,33 174,55 1720,04 174,55 194,24

Design methods
𝐵 𝐿 𝐵 𝐿
There are two types of foundations: 𝑀𝑑𝑒𝑟 = 2 × 𝐶 × ( − ) − 2 × 𝑇 × ( + )
2 2 2 2
isolated foundations and fractionated − (2 × 𝑉𝑙,𝑇 + 2 × 𝑉𝑙,𝐶 ) × 𝐻
foundations.
The footing stability is guaranteed by
The design of isolated foundation is
own-weight.
conditioned by overturning stability. The
𝐵
design of fractionated foundations is 𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑡 = 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑎 × ( )
2
conditioned by uplift resistance.
According to the code, the safe
coefficient to overturning is 1,5.

Isolated footing 𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑡

≥ 1,5
𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡
Stability design

The overturning moment is calculated

with loading of base of the tower considering Sulzberger method [2]

the worst edge (in red). The Sulzberger method differs from
previous by considering the reactions from
soil which benefit the footing stability.

The method is based on the principle that

for a slope gradient which tan α < 0,01, soil
has elastic behavior. Small displacement of
the pad create stress in vertical excavation
walls. The surface soil resistance is null and
grow up proportionally to depth.
Fig. 1 – Loading and isolated footing

2
 The soil reactions are represented in 𝑇𝐾
𝑇𝑑 =
𝛾𝑑
figure bellow.
𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝑇𝑘 = ; 𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝜋 × 𝐷𝑑 × 𝛼 × 𝑞𝑠 × 𝐿𝑏
𝜉

Pad and chimney

Pad and chimney with a circular section

is like a pile with an enlargement at the base,
even the reinforcement is like a pile only in
vertical, the base has not reinforcement.

Pad and chimney with a rectangular

section is a single footing founded at a big
Fig. 2 – Soil stresses
depth that has a chimney to connect with the
These stresses are included in the
structure of the tower.
calculation to resisting moments through soil
parameters. The design of both kind of pad and
chimney is calculated using the same
Nailing methods, since the behavior of interaction

This type of foundations needs a good with soil is the same. This kind of foundation

soil resistance, it’s indicated for rock bloc when subjected to uplift load, the base

with a level of RQD higher than 75%. mobilizes a truncated cone of soil which
works like part of uplift resistance of the
The nailing resistance is assured by three
foundation.
elements involved, the steel bar, the cement
grout and the soil. There are three types of Method based on angle of

failure: Regulamento [1]

 Steel bar failure Based on the principle of truncated cone

 Grout-soil interface failure formation, the code provides values to angle

of incline, β, in Quadro Nº5.1-artigo 74º.
 Slippage of bar-grout interface

Corrosion is a risk in this type of

foundation, to prevent corrosion requires a
good covering of bar and a water-cement
ratio between 0,4-0,5.

Nailing axial strength

𝑃𝛾 = 𝑓𝑠𝑦𝑑 × 𝐴𝑝

Fig. 3 - Truncated cone with angle β

Grout-soil interface resistance

Based on Recommendations Clouterre

[3].

3
 Uplift resistance is calculated with the 1st Category – clay soils with higher
sum of own-weight of the foundation and the saturation and internal friction ϕ ≤ 15º
weight of truncated cone.
2nd Category – powdery soils or
(𝑉𝑠 × 𝛾𝑠 ) + 𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑 > 𝑇𝑖 unsaturated clay with high internal friction ϕ
> 15º

The depth of foundation influence the

Biarez and Barraud [4]
failure surface. If the depth of foundation is
The method developed by Biarez and bigger than critical depth (Dc) the shear is
Barraud was based in experimental studies localized.
with reduced models with river sand and
The parameters “M” are determined with
unsaturated clay.
abacus.
The behavior of pad and chimney
depends of kind of soil, the method divided
in two kind of soils:  1st category soils

Fig. 4 – 1st category soils behavior

D ≤ Dc uplift resistance: For rectangular section 𝑅 = 𝑅𝑒 = 𝑝/8.

𝑄𝑓𝑡 = 𝑆𝐿 [𝐶 𝑀𝑐 + 𝛾 𝐷 (𝑀𝜙 + 𝑀𝛾 ) + 𝑞 𝑀𝑞 ] + 𝑃 𝑄𝑓𝑡2 = 𝑆𝐿 [𝐶 𝑀𝑐 + 𝛾 (𝐷 − 𝐷𝑐 )(𝑀𝜙 + 𝑀𝛾 )]

+ 𝑃𝐹(𝐷−𝐷𝑐)
For rectangular section 𝑅 = 𝑅𝑒 = 𝑝/8
For rectangular chinmey 𝑅𝑓 = 𝑅𝑒𝑓 =
D > Dc uplift resistance is a sum of two
𝑝𝑓 /2𝜋.
resistances:

𝑄𝑓𝑡 = 𝑄𝑓𝑡1 + 𝑄𝑓𝑡2

𝑄𝑓𝑡1 = 𝑆𝐿 [𝐶 𝑀𝑐 + 𝛾 𝐷𝑐 (𝑀𝜙 + 𝑀𝛾 ) + 𝑞𝑀𝑞 ] + 𝑃(𝐷𝐶)

+ 𝑃𝑆

4
  2nd category soils

Fig. 5 – 2nd category soils behavior

D < Dc uplift resistance: Soil characterization

𝑄𝑓𝑡 = 𝑆𝐿 [𝐶 𝑀𝑐 + 𝛾 𝐷 (𝑀𝜙 + 𝑀𝛾 ) + 𝑞 𝑀𝑞 ] + 𝑃  Sample of soil S1

For rectangular section 𝑅 = 𝑅𝑒 = 𝑝/2𝜋. Rock Siltstone

D > Dc uplift resistance:

RQD 75-100% (5m)

𝑄𝑓𝑡 = 𝑄𝑓𝑡𝑏 + 𝑄𝑓𝑡𝑓 + 𝑃 Maximum

compressive stress 1000 kPa
𝑄𝑓𝑡𝑏 is the resistance caused by localized
𝝈𝒂𝒅𝒎 (kPa)
shear. The powdery soil at this depth causes a
Specific gravity 𝜸𝒔
failure surface with a circular form around the two 19,0
(kN/m2)
sides of the base.

𝑄𝑓𝑡𝑏 = (𝑆𝑏 − 𝑆𝑓 ) 𝑚 𝑀 (𝛾 𝐷 tan 𝜙 + 𝐶)

 Sample of soil S2
𝑄𝑓𝑡𝑓 is the resistance of chimney that act like
a pile with α = - ϕ/8. Rock Siltstone

𝑄𝑓𝑡𝑓 = 𝑆𝐿 [𝐶 𝑀𝑐 + 𝛾 𝐷 (𝑀𝜙 + 𝑀𝛾 ) + 𝑞𝑜 𝑀𝑞 ] RQD 50-75% (3m)

For rectangular section 𝑅 = 𝑅𝑒 = 𝑝/2𝜋. Maximum

compressive stress 800 kPa
𝝈𝒂𝒅𝒎 (kPa)
Specific gravity 𝜸𝒔
19,0
(kN/m3)

5
  Sample of soil S3

Siltstone Table 2 - Isolated footing dimensions

Soil
decomposed
A (m) 12
NSPT (average) 12,25

Maximum B (m) 12
compressive stress 600 kPa
𝝈𝒂𝒅𝒎 (kPa)
H (m) 3
Specific gravity 𝜸𝒔
18,5
(kN/m3)

Internal friction ϕ (º) 30 Using the Sulzberger method with

consideration of soil stresses in stability to
overturning, the dimensions are reduced to:

A (m) 11 B (m) 11 H (m) 3

Design of foundations

For each type of soil, presents the main For the project design was considered
results of the foundation design that was the bigger dimensions, for security reasons.
considered most appropriate. However,
Type of soil S3
other solutions were studied.
Due to weak conditions of soil, because
Type of soil S1
of the degradation state of the rock, pad and
Due to high level of RQD, soil S1 is a rock chimney foundations seems the better
with good characteristics and high strength. option.
Nailing foundation seems be the better
Pad and chimney with circular section
choice.
Table 3 - Pad and chinmey dimensions
Considering nailing 16ϕ25, the tension in
each nailing is 143,73 kN. The tensile d (m) 1,1
D (m) 2,5
strength is 213,53 kN, conditioned by nailing
h1 (m) 6
axial strength.
h2 (m) 6,5
h (m) 6,7
b (m) 0,5
Type of soil S2
c (m) 0,2

Once at 3m of depth, soil present Δ (m) 0,5

conditions for foundation, it was considered

the solution of isolated footing.

With stability design method without

Comparing the results of uplift resistance
consideration of soil stresses, the
of the two methods in study:
dimensions of the footing are:

6
 Uplift resistance by angle β of Comparing the results of uplift resistance
2482,56
the code [kN] of the two methods in study:
Uplift resistance by Biarez and
3764,74 Uplift resistance by angle β of
Barraud method (kN) 2496,78
the code [kN]
Uplift resistance by Biarez and
3698,51
The method using the angle of the code Barraud method (kN)
is conditional.

Pad and chimney with rectangular The method using the angle of the code
section is conditional.

Table 4 - Pad and chimney dimensions

b (m) 0,8

B (m) 3,0

a (m) 0,5

h (m) 5,0

c (m) 1,0

Table 5 - Results analysis

Pad and Pad and

Isolated
Nailing Chimney Chimney
Footing
circular rectangular
Soil S1
Rock
Little degradation
Good strength
Soil S2
Median degradation
Some strength
Soil S3
High degradation
Soil
Low strength

Legend: Suitable

Not advised Very suitable

Can be considered

7
 Nailing foundation is the better solution of investigations to the ground in order to be
for soil like S1, because takes vantage of representative of the entire line.
rock strength. On the other hand, its
construction implies skilled labor and
specialized equipment.

Isolated footing is an option that involves Bibliographic References

large amounts of material, but the
excavation depth is low and doesn’t need
skilled labor. [1] Regulamento de Segurança de
Linhas Eléctricas de Alta Tensão,
Pad and chimney with circular section Decreto Regulamentar nº 1/92 de 18
has the problem of reinforcement, the fact of de Fevereiro, 1992.
the reinforcement is only vertically and not
exist in the base, compromises the tensile [2] P. LABEGALINI, Projectos
strength of the base. The equipment needed Mecânicos das Linhas Aéreas de
is very specialized. Transmissão, Blucher.

Pad and chimney with rectangular [3] Projet national Clouterre,

section is a good solution for different types Recommandations Clouterre,
of soil. However, the design methods in Presses de Ecole Nationale des
study only considered soil and not rock, Ponts et chaussées, 1991.
furthermore the excavation of rock is not a
[4] J. BIAREZ e Y. BARRAUD, “The
good option. To ensure the intended effect
Use of Soil Mechanics Methods for
of soil behavior, the excavation must be
Adapting Tower Foundations to Soil
done completely vertical.
Conditions,” CIGRE, Paris, 1968.

Conclusions

In this present study, the stability

methods based on coefficients and
parameters of the code [1] gives more
conservative results when compared with
methods of geotechnical studies which
considered the interaction and reactions
from soil to foundation.

A complete study of foundation soil

characteristics is fundamental for a
minimization of construction costs. It’s
essential to perform a considerable number