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.4. Direct enbedment foundation With single and sonetimes H-frane pole structures, especially smaller ones, the pole itself may be used as the foundation. A hole is excavated, the pole is placed directly into the hole, and then backfilling is done. 5. Anchor foundations Anchors are long, very slender structural elements. Typically they are steel, but there are other options. Several major variations exist. Plate anchors are long rods with flat plates at varicus levels; they are placed in excavated holes and backfilled with soil. ‘Screw anchors are essentially augers which are screwec directly into the ground. Grouted anchors are long rods which are placed in excavated holes and then grouted to fill the annulus. Inflated anchors are similar to the grouted, except that the anchors are expanded to grip the wall of the hole; they may or may not be grouted afterwards. Anchors often are installed in a group and tied together through a cap to form a foundation; however, many variations are employed for specific situations. Most of these types of foundations can, in principle, be used for most of the loading cases depicted in Figure 1-6. Economics and construction ease cenerally dictate the final selection of foundation type. FOUNDATION ECONOMICS AND RELIABILITY Economics and reliability enter into the design process for all components of a transmission line at all stages of the design process. However, the manner in which they are introduced will vary with the particular system component. When we consider the characterization of the geologic environment and the definition of the geotechnical design parameters, the question we have to answer is, "How much in- vestment must be made in exploration and testing to define the geotechnical condi- tions for efficient, economical and reliable foundation design?" This is not a simple question to answer. The natural geologic environment is complex, but its evolution to the present has followed well-known processes. An understanding of these processes will allow the designer to anticipate the most likely type of subsurface conditions to be found in a given area. This knowledge leads to a method of exploration and testing which will optimize the geotechnical information gained in the process. This informa~ ‘tion, in turn, can be used to make rational decisions which will influence struc ture siting and structure design, and control foundation design. By following this approach, and optimizing whenever possible, the reliability of the geotechnical information governing the design decisions will be increased. If the geotechnicalinformation is not optimized, the design decisions made will not have a quantifi- able level of reliability and the foundation design is likely to be overly conservative. The costs involved are substantial. Typical 1980 single circuit line costs, including material, labor and right-of-way, are shown in Table 1-1. Table 1-1 TYPICAL LINE COST ESTIMATES Line Voltage Cost per Mile 345 kV $220,000 - 290,000 500 kv 290,000 - 380,000 765 kV 725,000 - 870,000 1200 kv 990,000 - 1,300,000 The actual costs for a particular line are, of course, influenced by a number of factors, but it is interesting to note that the costs typically are in the range of $600 - $1100/kV/mile. The cost of each component of the Tine was estinated in a recent report (12). Typical values from this report are given in Table 1-2. This table only includes drilled shaft foundations. Unfortunately specific cost data are difficult to obtain for other foundation types. An informal telephone survey indicated that typical foundation costs are in the range of 5% to 20% of line costs. From these data it can be seen that foundation costs are on the order of $100/KV/ mile. Optimization of the geotechnical information has the potential to reduce these costs significantly, and to increase the level of reliability as noted earli- er. These two themes - economics and reliability - form the underlying basis 1-15Table 1-2 TYPICAL LINE COST BY COMPONENTS Component Percent Cost by Component (Material and Labor} 345 kV 50D KV 765: KV 1200 kV Tower 49 4 6 48 Foundation (drilled shafts) a 9 6 7 Conductor 26 34 36 29 Conductor Hardware 2 2 2 2 Shield Wire 3 2 1 1 Insulators and Hardware 9 9 9 13 Source: Reference (12) for this report. SUMMARY AND SCOPE OF REPORT The design of a transmission line system is an interactive process, as described previously and illustrated in Figure 1-1. Many considerations enter inte the de- sign process, but none are more variable and difficult to quantify than the geo- technical problems which influence structure siting and structure design, and con- trol foundation design. A vast amount of geotechnical information exists, much of it developed from research and mich from successful application of the ideas of en- gineers faced with design problems. The results obtained may be available in some type of documented form, or they may only exist in terms of generally unaccessible, undocumented experience and practice. This leads to a fragmented data base. The consequence fs that costly research results may not be fully utilized, valuable field experience may not be incorporated, and due consideration may not be given to recomended practices for solving a particular problem. The purpose of this study is to provide a state-of-the-art assessment of foundat fon engineering for electrical transmission line structures, with particular emphasis on design for uplift/compression loads. The initial sections of the report focus on the analysis and design philosophy for foundations and the geologic and geotech~ nical evaluation of ground conditions. Included are general methodologies and 1-16strategies, general site evaluation techniques, field exploration methods and the determination of geotechnical design parameters by field and laboratory testing. Following are the specific data for the analysis and design of foundations. Within these sections detailed approaches are presented for computing the axial capacity of foundations, as well as their movement. These approaches are confirmed by a comprehensive data base of field load tests. Construction factors and influences are introduced where appropriate. Because foundation-structure interaction is so important in design, the next sec- tions deal with the questions of differential foundation movement and their effect on the structure, The results illustrate the need to consider differential fourda~ tion movements in the design of the structure and point out the shortcomings of current elastic design methods. Concluding the report is a general methodology for foundation analysis and desicn, and specific research reconmendations for improving the state-of-the-art. Appendices are included to supplement specific sections with appropriate details. A supplemental volume to this study has also been prepared which includes summaries of available field load test information. The data in this volume should be of considerable use to the profession for preliminary design, evaluation of specific load tests, and future work on foundation systems. REFERENCES: 1, Rural Electrification Administration, "Design Manual for High Voltage Trans- mission Lines", REA Bulletin 62-1, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, Aug. 1980, 388 p.. 2. Farr, H. H., Transmission Line Design Manual, Water and Power Resources Service, U.3. Department oF the TaterTor, Denver, CO, 1980, 483 p. 3. Task Committee on Tower Design (J. R. Arena, Chairman), "Guide for the Design of Stee! Transmission Towers", Nanual_and Report on Engineering Practice No. 52, ASCE, 1971, 47 p. 4. Task Committee on Steel Transmission Poles (G. M. Wilhoite, Chairman), Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE, 1978, 74 p. 5. Task Committee on Lightweight Alloys (R. J. Brungraber, Chairman), "Guide for the Design of Aluminum Transmission Towers", Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. STI2, Dec. 1972, pp: 2785-2801.10. he 12. Rodgers Ts Eu Ores Anderson, MC and Chang, D Speciti¢ation’for Concrete Pole Structures", Transact fons Paper No. 175-170-6, IEEE Power Engineering Society, simile ert seting, New York, NY, Tan. 1975: IEEE/ASCE Joint Conmittee for Preparation of a Foundation Design Guide (A. M. DiGioia, dr., and P. A, Tedesco, Co-Chairman), Guide for Transmission Structure Foundation Design, to be published by IEEE (currently under re- a American National Standards Committee C2, National Electrical Safety Code, 1977 Edition, IEEE, New York, NY, 1977. Subgroup on Loadings and Strength of Transmission Line Systems (P. A. Tedesco, Chairman), "Loading and Strength of Transnissign Line, Systans, Parts 1'through 6", Conference Papers A 77 228-0, R77 229-8, A 77 230-6, Apr oalsby AUN) Zagebe RTT OBBOS IEEE Power Engineering SScTety, Winter Weeting, New York, NY, Jan-Feb. 1977. Committee on Electrical Transmission Structures (G. M. Withoite, Chairman), “Loadings for Electrical Transmission Structures", Report presented and dis- tributed at the ASCE Spring Meeting, Portland, OR, Apr. 1980. Mozer, J. 0., "Longitudinal Unbalanced Loads on Transmission Line Struc tures", Report EL-643, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Auge 98 Broad, R. J., et al., "Cost Components of High-Capacity Transmission Options", Report EL-i065, Vol. 1, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alton Ca. May 1975Section 2 ANALYSIS/DESIGN PHILOSOPHY FOR FOUNDATIONS Foundations for transmission line structures must satisfy the same basic criteria that must be met for all types of foundations: They must be stable, and have an adequate factor of safety or level of reliability against failure. 2. They must not move excessively, which could impair the function of the structure. 3. They must be economical, or at least cost-effective for the partic- ular type of structure. To meet these criteria, a nunber of factors mst be considered. These were de- scribed in Section 1 and include the following: (1) geologic environment, (2) loading characteristics, (3) foundation characteristics, (4) foundation response, (5) soil or rock response factors, and (6) construction procedure. Ultimately these factors are all a function of the ground conditions - how they were original- ly, how they were altered during construction, and how they respond to Toad. Eval- uation of ground conditions is the key to successful foundation design. MODEL RELIABILITY In the analysis/design process for foundations, common practice is to assume a model, which ideally represents the manner in which the prototype foundation be- haves, and then perform the necessary analysis and design computations for the model. Obviously, model selection is very important. Research and development studies, and observations of load test performance, have ‘improved greatly our understanding of how foundations behave. This increased un- derstanding has often led to significant improvement or refinement of foundation models. What was considered to be a good model at one time may no longer be such at the present time. Foundation models have proliferated for decades and, unfortunately, many which should have been put aside a long time ago are still in use. Some are overly 21simplified and neglect construction procedures. Others only apply to a limited range of field conditions. Many of these simplified models also represent a very conservative approach wich is not likely to be cost-effective. In this report, models will be stressed that represent best our current understand- ‘ing of how foundations behave. Arguments will also be presented to illustrate why certain models still in use should be discarded. MATERIAL PROPERTY RELIABILITY A11 models require material properties to make a prediction of prototype response. For foundations, the properties needed are those of the structural material (con- crete, steel, etc.) and the host soil or rock. The properties required will vary depending on the model enployed. For the structural material, the properties are well-defined because the materials are made to a particular specification, Harr (2) notes that the coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) on the con- pressive strength of concrete and the tensile strength of steel is only on the or- der of 6. Therefore the properties of these materials can be dealt w dently. conf i- On the other hand, the properties of soil and rock materials vary significantly. The variations of these properties are functions of sampling, testing and chance variations. Harr (1) cites the ranges in laboratory determined properties given in Table 2-1, which are significantly larger than the properties of the structural materials. The variation in field determined properties may even be la-ger. It should be noted that the variability in basic index properties (void ratio and water content) is relatively small. Similarly the variability is small for the friction angle, which is a fundanental effective stress paraneter for granular soils. However, the variability is relatively large for the unconfined compressive strength and therefore the undrained shear strength, This occurs because they are not fundamental parameters; instead they are derived parameters which are a func- tion of the effective stress friction angle, stress history of the soil, effective overburden stress and water content, as 2 minimum. Since each of the individual parameters are variables, the resulting derived parameter will have a relatively large coefficient of variation. These data illustrate clearly two very important points: 1. The variability of soil properties is much larger than that of oth- er components; therefore, the greatest uncertainties in transmis~ sion line structure analysis and design Iie in the evaluation of the geotechnical design parameters. 2-2Table 2-1 VARIABILITY OF SOME SOIL PROPERTIES Property Coefficient of Variation (%) Void ratio, granular sofls 13-30 Void ratio, cohesive soils 15-32 Water content, cohesive soils 6-18 Friction angle, granular sof ls 5-14 Unconf ined compressive strength, cohesive soils 29-49 Unconfined compressive strength, til] 36-85 Source: Reference (1), pp. 369, 372 2. Foundation analysis and design procedures which are based upon fun- damental soil or rock properties (e.g., effective stress friction angle, in-situ stress) inherent ly have a significantly higher level of reliability than those which are based upon derived paraneters such as the undrained shear strength. These points illustrate why the geotechnical design parameters constitute the "weakest link" in transmission line design, and why designs based upon derived pa- rameters must be more conservative. As a corollary, designs based upon enpirical correlations should be even more conservative because the correlations will have even more variability than the derived parameters. In this respect, analysis and design recommendations are made which stress sound geotechnical practice. CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS Construction plays a vital role in evaluating foundation response. The key factors involved include: (1) poor construction practices, (2) installation techniques and (3) soil or rock disturbance. The effects of poor construction practices are obvious: foundation capacity will be decreased and foundation movements will be increased. The only solution is in- spect ion by qualified personnel to insure that the foundations have been 203constructed in accordance with the design specifications. Installation techniques and soil disturbance are intertwined and are a function of foundation type. Many details are involved, but principally the main features to consider are: 1 soil or rock disturbance during excavation 2 method of installing the foundation 3. changes in the in-situ state of stress 4. effects of backfilling, concreting or grouting 5 changes in soil or rock properties 6. ground water elevation and fluctuation All of these factors are influential, and are described in the sections on specific foundation types. VERIFICATION OF ANALYSIS/OESIGN METHODOLOGY Every analysis/design method mist be verified to prove its validity and generality. Commonly this process involves four stages: (1) analytical model development, (2) controlled testing, normally in the laboratory where a wide variety of parameters can be investigated, (3) full-scale load testing in the field to confirm the ana- lytical model and laboratory tests, and (4) development of a cost-effective proce- dure for implementing the analysis/design method. Many methods have been proposed over the years which have been deficient in one or more of the above. Unfortunately, some were implemented prematurely, and sone have been extended well beyond the limits within which they were verified and intended. This report will attenpt to focus on the analysis/design methods that have been verified adequately and to identify the ranges of applicability of other methods. FOUNDATION USAGE TRENDS WITHIN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY To determine past practices and future trends of foundatfon usage within the indus try, EPRI distributed a questionnaire to utilities across the U.S. The quest ion- naire requested the following data: statistics on mileage of existing lines, up- grading of existing lines in the next 10 years, and planned new line construct ion for the next 10 years, all as a function of structure type (single pole, two- legged, four-legged) and foundation type (straight drilled shaft, beled drilled 2-4shaft, grillage, spread footing, direct enbednent). The response was very good, with more than 2/3 of the utilities responding. The distribution was fairly uni- form across the country, and nearly all of the states were represented. A signifi- cant nunber of utilities also included a separate category of other foundation types, which included foundations such as anchors, piles, etc. The results for four-legged towers are given in Table 2-2, and show that shafts collectively have been used most frequently and are expected to increase in usage, with preference given to straight shafts. It should be noted that significant re~ gional variations exist. For two-legged frames and single poles, the clear choice is direct enbedment foundations, although straight shaft and other foundations con- stitute significant percentages. Full details of the questionnaire results are given in Appendix A. Table 2-2 RESULTS OF EPRI QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FOUR-LEGGED TOWERS Foundation Type Percent Usage for Four-Legged Towers Existing Upgrading New Straight shaft a 24 a7 Belled shaft 22 24 20 Grillage 36 36 18 Spread footing 16 rt 12 Direct embedment. 1 0 0 Other 4 5 3 SUMMARY The key to efficient analysis and design of foundations ultimately is the determin ation of the ground conditions, which requires evaluating the characteristics of the soil or rock in-situ, how these characteristics are altered during construc- tion, and how the soil or rock responds to Toad. This must be done in a manner which optimizes both reliability and economics. Industry trends toward specific 25foundation types reflects this optimization. In the following section, a generalized strategy 1s posed for developing an optimal exploration progran, This is followed by detailed sections which include proced- ures for obtaining the geotechnical data and analysis/design methods for founda- tions. REFERENCES 1. Harr, M. €., Mechanics of Particulate Media: A Probabilistic Approach, McGraw- HIM Book Cospanjs New York, MVS S07, BS pe 2-6Section 3 STRATEGY FOR SITE CHARACTERIZATION The optimal geologic and geotechnical exploration program for a transmission line should promote the most cost-effective design for a desired level of reliability. To accomplish these goals, the engineer should establish the minimum acceptable level of reliability, and then weigh the costs of exploration against the savings in foundation design that may accrue from better characterization of ground condi- tions at each structure site. In this manner, the optimal level of exploration is defined by minimizing the combined costs for exploration and foundations. It is assumed that there will always be a minimum level of exploration. To apply an optimization process successfully, cost vs. benefit evaluations mst be made. for every decision, the engineer should consider whether the additional ex- pense for more information will result in reduced foundation costs. Similarly, the engineer should evaluate whether additional information could reduce uncertainty in aesign. EXPLORATION MODEL The concepts posed can be illustrated qualitatively as an exploration model for transmission Tine structure foundations. They also could be developed as effec- tively for structure siting; however, the principles would be the same. The node! generally follows that of Baecher (1) and Collins and Daniels (2). Figure 3-La shows that the costs of exploration rise with the level of explorat ion detail required, first gradually and then more steeply as additional information becomes more costly to obtain, Eventually a point of diminishing returns is reached. Costs are lower when more efficient techniques are used for a given ex- ploration objective; for example, swamps and other areas of surface water are more economically located with USGS topographic maps or aerial photographs than by ground reconnaissance. Figure 3-b illustrates that foundation costs decrease from some maximum value when no exploration is performed to some minimum value when a large amount of site data is on hand. Costs increase when increased reliability is required. 341Cost of exploration Combined cost of foundations and exploration Cost of foundations —_, Level of exploration Increasing — A inimnam foundation cost Level of exploration b increasing reliability “Optimal” levels of exploration Level of exploration Figure 3-1. increasing efficiency a c Exploration cost + Foundation cost Total Exploration and Foundation cost Cost vs. Level of Exploration 32In the optimal case, as shown in Figure 3-1c, the engineer adds the costs of ex- ploration and foundation construction, chooses a level of reliability, and then performs the amount of exploration that minimizes total costs, using the explora tion techniques that yield the maximun amount of information for the least cost. In practice, such a procedure is difficult to apply because the data required to perform the analysis may not be readily available. However, the concepts illus trated form a useful framework to guide engineers in planning exploration procrams. Even if the analysis cannot be performed in precise nunerical form, it is very use- ful to weigh the tradeoff of costs and benefits and to understand the way explora tion costs, foundation costs, exploration efficiency and reliability are related. A further difficulty in applying these concepts may arise in utilities where trans- mission line projects have decentralized management. If separate groups are re- sponsible for exploration, design and construction, each group may be given a sep- arate budget to meet at an early stage before adequate information is available. This approach can lead to some problens. For example, after preliminary studies are completed, it may become more cost-effective to increase the exploration bud~ get, because such an increase may result in a greater decrease in overall founda~ tion costs because of better characterization of site conditions. This would re- quire budget re-allocation, The optimal exploration progran does not necessarily employ the most state-of-the- art techniques available, because such techniques may be too cost ly for the bene- fits they yield. The best approach, therefore, is to minimize overall costs through an understanding of all the interrelated factors. The key to this is com munication between a1 members of the design tean. DECISIONS BASED ON EXPECTED COSTS For decisions between alternatives where one has a known cost, an approximate cost/ benefit tradeoff can be made by calculating the expected costs of the alternative decisions. Suppose, for exanple, that for a particular transmission line, a series of four standardized drilled shaft foundations have been designed with individual costs of $12,000, $10,000, $9,000 and $8,000. Consider further the simple case of a single structure which has been assigned a $10,000 foundation on the basis of preliminary estimates of soil conditions (e.g., aerial photographic studies). During an aerial reconnaissance or a ground survey, the soil at one particular 33structure site may appear to be stronger and denser to the engineer than the soil at the other sites, The engineer estimates from his experience that there is a 40% chance that the $9,000 foundation could be used, a 40% chance that the $8,000 foun- dation could be used, and a 15% chance that the original $10,000 foundation will be required. In addition, his experience indicates a 5% chance that conditians will ‘turn out worse than he expected, and that the $12,000 foundation will be -equired. The decision to be made is: How much should the engineer be willing to invest in a field test to assess the actual site conditions? ‘An answer can be formulated using a concept from probability theory called the “expected value criterion". Using this approach, the expected cost is defined to be the sum of the possible costs times their respective probabilities. For this purpose, cost overruns are excluded, because they would likely affect each of the four foundation types equally. However, they could also be analyzed independent ly. With no test, the expected foundation cost will be $10,000 ($10,000 x probability of 1.0), With the test, however, the expected cost of the foundation would be only $12,000 (0.05) + $10,000 (0.15) + $9,000 (0.4) + $8,000 (0.4) = $8,900, Using these expected costs, the engineer might therefore be willing to invest as mich as the difference ($1,100) for additional testing to confirm the site conditions and perhaps design a more econonical foundation with higher reliability. Clearly, the computation is based on subjective estimates. The engineer who made the decision performed no analysis to arrive at the probabilities; instead experi- ence and perception of the geotechnical conditions were used to make an "educated guess". Because the engineer's judgment offers the best information available, the decision is better than one based on the opinion of someone who has not szen the actual site. While the actual cost may differ from the expected cost for an indi- vidual structure, over a large number of sites the total cost should average out to the expected costs if the engineer's judgment is well-calibrated. If there is a variance, the engineer has nunerical feedback with which he can calibrate his judg- ment for the future. This feedback loop is an important aspect of the decision Process and, if used correctly, should lead to more accurate forecasts of actual costs in the future. Planners of transmission line exploration programs are interested in the cost of various exploration methods, particularly those involving relatively expensive equipment. This report presents some generalized cost data on the various explora tion techniques, but it should be recognized that these nunbers depend on many 34local factors and are subject to inflation-based revisions with time. Incremental cost per test Variable cost Total cost Fixed cost Number of tests performed Figure 3-2. Cost Components for Field Exploration Techniques Figure 3-2 shows the general components of the costs of a field exploration tech- nique. Much of the cost is from mobilization of equipment and personnel on the site. The incremental, or marginal, cost of a few borings, geophysical lines or in-situ tests is usually low when compared with these mobilization charges. There~ fore, when selecting a technique to use, it fs helpful to break down the cost into the fixed and variable components. In this way, the true costs of additional in- formation can be determined more accurately. AMOUNT OF FIELD EXPLORATION REQUIRED Perhaps the major economic question facing transmission line engineers in the exploratory phase is the determination of the nunber of test borings to obtain site-specific data. Unfortuately, there is no simple answer to this question. However, examination of extreme cases is useful for evaluating the costs and bene- fits involved. An understanding of these should lead to better exploration deci- sions. At one extreme, consider the case of a low voltage wood pole distribution line, where the poles are generally placed in augered holes less than 3 meters (10 feet) deep. If unforeseen difficulties arise, such as shallow bedrock or caving soi 345conditions, the costs involved with down time are relatively small because of the small size of the work crew, the limited anount of small-scale equipment present, and the ready availability of additional equipment to correct the problen. On the other hand, consider the construction of a 765 kV Tine in a remote area. Here a large crew will be present, several large pieces of equipment may be on the site, and additional equipment to correct problems may be costly and time-consuming to mobilize onto the site. In the first case, it may not be worth drilling any exploratory test borings, be- cause they would cost nearly as much as the construction auger holes thenselves. In the second instance, however, exploratory borings would be worth drilling for each foundation because of the high penalty cost from construction delays or re~ designs if ground conditions turn out to be unfavorable. Between these two extremes, at each line voltage, there will turn out to be an optimal anount of drilling. This concept is shown schematically in Figure 3-3. Beyond a particular voltage (and combination of reliability, site conditions, etc.), it will be cost-effective to explore each structure site with one or more borings; below this voltage, drilling at each site may not necessarily be cost-ef- fective because the cost of test borings is more than the penalty costs. Beyond these general guidelines, each transmission line requires a separate analy- sis to determine the appropriate amount of exploration. The optimal amount will depend on the spacing of structures, the level of reliability of the foundations, the cost of the test borings, and the experience and equipment of the contractor. Because of the nunber of factors that influence the drilling question, it is impos- sible to present a universal cost analysis. Quantitatively, however, it has been shown that the cost of a few additional borings beyond the “optimal” nunber is gen- erally less than the cost of major construction delays, especially on the higher voltage lines. Figure 3-4 shows this relationship, where penalty costs rise much more steeply with fewer than the optimal nunber of borings than with more, Fur- ‘thermore, additional borings have the added advantage of reducing excessive conser- vatism in foundation design. NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY, COMMUNICATION AND INSPECTION Experience has shown that it is expensive (or impossible) to determine all the geo- technical data required for optimal structure design at a particular site. On the 3-6Penalty cost of construction problems arising because of insufficient borings Number of structures. per boring — -@ —-- Cost Optimal exploration for selected voltage is 2 structures per boring Line voltage Figure 3-3. Optimization of Exptoration by Comparison with Penalty Costs “Underexplored” Optimal { "Overexplored" Penalty cost Level of exploration Figure 3-4. Penalty Costs for Underexplored or Overexplored Sitesother hand, many foundations are overdesigned because the design was fixed at an early stage, prior to exploration, on the basis of the worst anticipated condi- tions. It is important to note that the more cost-effective designs incorporate Flexibility so that foundation details can be modified during construction as actu- al ground conditions become revealed. The successful application of this approach requires that the preliminary site evaluation define the range of conditions likely to be present along the proposed right-of-way so that foundation designers can assign a general type of foundation to structures along the route. Then, after more detailed investigations at each structure location, the range of design parameters can be narrowed, realizing that changes may be required later. Finally, if conditions are found to differ during construction, modifications can be made to the individual foundations with minimal additional cost. Communication among the design, exploration and construction teams forms a critical part of the evaluation process. In many instances, this communication can elimi- nate overly-conservative designs and costly surprises during construction that oc- cur when actual site conditions, observed by the exploration tean, do not match the assumed conditions used by the foundation designers. Communication during con- struction 1s particularly important because of the high cost of construction delays and equipment down-time. In many cases, managers believe that costs can be minimized by omitting inspection of drilling and sampling activities. In most instances, this practice proves to be false economy. Drilling crews, while commonly having a good working knowledge of Soil and rock conditions as they relate to advancing a boring, are not trained to apply this knowledge to the design and construction of foundations. In addition, they conmonly do not record all of their observations in the drilling logs, so that by the time the design engineer requires the information, it is lost. Instead, what remains is a box of jars containing disturbed soil samples that do not fully represent the material as it exists in the ground. If one or more specific structure locations represent areas of complex soil or rock conditions, a trained geologist or geotechnical engineer can recognize this fact and concentrate exploration resources on such troublesome areas. Drilling crews, however, are untrained in this regard and are unlikely to record the additional re- quired data, In many cases, the modest additional expense of a qualified drilling on by inspector can reduce the overall cost of foundation design and constru 348recognizing problems before they lead to construction delays and possible major re- designs. GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR EXPLORATION PROGRAMS The exploration progran for @ transmission line can be visualized as a process in which increasingly detailed and expensive methods are applied to obtain the data required for design. Initially, the general aerial (and inexpensive) methods can provide broad ranges for soil and rock types, geometries and properties. These data can then be used to plan the remainder of the program, in which increasingly detailed methods can be used to focus on the required design paraneters. Figure 3-5 shows a general geotechnical approach used in transmission line engin- ering. The level of detail required at each stage will depend on the experience and judgment of the design team, as well as on the conditions in the target area and the economics of the particular transmission line. The following paragraphs explain briefly the various parts of the exploration process; these are explained in more detail in subsequent sections of the report. Physiography refers to the origin of and changes in landforms, and includes topo- graphy, soil and rock types and geologic processes. Regional geology and physio- graphy can be determined quickly from published compilations and are very useful to establish generalized conditions along a proposed route. Sometimes this step is incorporated unconsciously into the program by virtue of the designer's experiences a designer may say, for example, “I know that I'm on the Atlantic coastal plain, so I won't have to worry about shallow rock, but I will have to worry about dewatering and bracing most of the foundation excavations." Site geology involves more detailed information than aerial physiography and pro- vides narrower limits. for ranges of soil and rock properties. Through use of geo- logic and topographic maps, remote sensing, and aerial and ground reconnaissance, estimates are made for soil and rock types, depths and properties. Groundwater depth, variability and quality are also approximated. The geologic information further points toward potential hazards from intermittent or ongoing processes such as earthquakes (intermittent) or dowslope soil creep (relatively continuous). The field exploration progran further refines knowledge of the geonetry and proper- ties of the materials found at a site. This program generally consists of a com- bination of borings, sampling, in-situ testing, geologic mapping, and/or geo- physical surveying. 349Buysaauybuz auy7 woyssjusued Jo s32adsy Le>{uyo9z0a9 JoJ weuGelg Mold uoijansysu0o puo ubisag Buses luoros01dxa Spioz0y 2160}0a6 |D1juayod ssessy *g-£ eanb44 ‘suo1jDpunos Jo uoloa1as yidep puo adky yo0s £10}030907, praia Auouiwijaag ayowis3 K60)086 Jouolbas puo fydosBoishyg yidap puo adh} |10s ayowiisa 3-10Laboratory testing can be used to supplement field exploration data where needed. Laboratory testing consists of two part: of soil properties such as grain-size distribution and moisture content (from which index testing, which provides a measure design properties such as strength can, in sone instances, be estimated), and engi- neering properties testing, in which the required properties are measured directly (and generally more accurately). Detailed and expensive engineering properties testing does not always prove to be cost-effective when designing widely-spaced structures such as transmission line structures. However, when conditions are rel- atively similar at a nunber of sites, or where a high reliability 1s required, such testing may be warranted. SUMMARY The strategies and approaches for site characterization have been outlined in the contexts of transmission line planning and foundation design. Although simplified, the outline presents a useful framework within which rational and cost-effective decisions can be made. REFERENCES: 1, Baecher, G. 8., "Analyzing Exploration Strategies", Proceedings, NSF Specialty Workshop on Site Characterization & Exploration, Ed. by C. H. Dowding, North- western University, Evanston, IL, June 1978, pp. 220-246." (Published by ASCE, 1979). 2. Collins, J. 0. and Daniels, R. D., "Budget Planning in Site Investigations", Proceedings, NSF Specialty workshop on Site Charaterization & Exploration, Ed. By C. H. Donding, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, June 1978, pp. 258- 265." (Published by ASCE, 1979). 3411Section 4 SITE RECONNAISSANCE Site reconnaissance refers to the process of obtaining preliminary geologic and geotechnical data which can be used for the following purposes: route selection 2. structure siting estimation of foundation conditions 4. location of potential problen areas Planning of detailed field exploration assisting in preliminary cost estimates Reconnaissance can be performed in a nunber of different ways, ranging from a study of regional geologic information to ground surveys, All of the techniques are use- ful for preliminary studies because they enable the engineer to obtain, quickly and economically, a large body of information on the general site conditions for a transmission line. This section outlines the types of data available, the more accessible sources of these data, and the general uses to which they can be applied for transmission line engineering. It is beyond the scope of this report to explain the detailed inter- pretation of these data, because each subject would require a textbook. However, pertinent references are included for further study. In addition, Appendix B ex- plains in detail how to obtain site reconnaissance data from a variety of sources. TYPES OF REGIONAL GEOLOGIC OATA An understanding of the regional geology constitutes one of the first objectives of a transmission line study because of its influence on planning, design, construc~ tion and costs. Regional geology is generally considered to consist of three com- ponents: (1) physiography, (2) surficial geology, and (3) bedrock geology. Phystography refers to the genesis and formation of landforms. Geologists have found that there exists only a limited number of landforms throughout the world. 1Through systematic study, they have been able to correlate landforms with the materials of which they are composed, as well as the processes by which they were formed. This knowledge provides an extrenely useful tool in the initial stages of transmission line planning, because small-scale physfographic data are readily available. General physiographic data for the continental United States are given int (1, 2, 3)- It should be recognized that the processes that caused existing landforas may not still be active. For example, the continental glaciers that deposited many of the soils over the northern part of the United States receded north approximately 11,000 years ago. Nevertheless, by understanding the mechanism of glacial deposi- tion of soils, one can infer mich about the materials present, their structure and their properties. Surficial geology refers to the geology of soil deposits in the upper few meters of the subsurface profile. Some published compilations treat the surficial geology in detail, while in others it mist be inferred fron the physiography. Ideally, knowledge of the surficial geology permits delineation of the various types of soils, their approximate range of engineering properties, their stratifi- cation and clues concerning special design or construction problews that might arise. Woods, Miles and Lovell (4) present particularly useful information on this subject. Surficial geology is a useful branch of earth science for the initial stages of transmission line planning. Sources of surficial geologic data are given in Appendix 8. Bedrock geology refers to the rocks present in an area, with special emphasis on their mineralogy, petrology (genesis), structure and other features of ‘mportance. For transmission line structures, bedrock geology is of importance only when bed- rock occurs within the zone of significant stress below the foundation of an indi- vidual structure. This depth ranges from several meters to several tens of meters, depending on the type of structure and its loading. Through knowledge of the bedrock geology, it is commonly possible to estimate the properties of the rock at a site, as well as potential problems related to its chenical or mechanical characteristics. It is generally difficult to estimate the depth to bedrock within tolerances useful for engineering planning studies on the basis of regional geologic information only. This one problem has probably result- ed in more construction cost overruns and delays than any single geologic factor 4-2except ground water. Sources of bedrock geologic data are given in Appendix B. USES OF REGIONAL GEOLOGIC DATA The specific interpretation of regional geologic information for transmission Tine Planning is beyond the scope of this report; details on the observations and ‘nter- pretation of these data are given in: (5 through 12). However, it is important to note the general uses to which these data can be put. In a large number of proj- ects, the marginal cost of additional regional data is small because mich of it is published and readily available; the returns are large in terms of better planning of exploration, design and construction strategies. The following illustrates areas in which regional geologic data are useful. Transmission line route selection depends on a large nunber of factors, such as property acquisition, previous rights of way, environmental and legal constraints, etc., of which geology and geotechnical conditions form only one part, which nay be smal] for many projects. All other factors being equal, regional geologic data can aid in route selection by outlining areas of known problematic conditions, such as floodplains with highly variable foundation conditions, mountainous regions that Will require special access considerations, or coastal plain areas with high vater tables and possible lack of strong foundation materials. If the option of choosing a route exists, these data can help in avoiding large areas where expensive design and construction measures will be required. For transmission lines in which it is not cost-effective to drill a test boring at each structure location, an important question concerns the number and placement of test borings along the route. Here, regional geological information can be put to use in delineating those areas likely to provide the greatest foundation design and construct ion difficulties. In addition, since the alternative routes have been selected, aerial recorinaissance flights can be planned with emphasis on those areas requiring additional observation. Access routes can be planned at this stage, and cut and clear operations can also be outlined. Since the goal of a transmission line project is to minimize overall cost, not just to keep each phase of the project “under the budget", it is useful to make strate- gic decisions on the basis of the best information obtainable, consistent with the costs involved. This implies that exploration budgets, for example, should not be set before a reasonable picture of the regional geologic and geotechnical condi- tions has been assembled, since additional exploratory information may more than pay for itself in reduced overall costs. 4-3In addition to aiding in setting more accurate exploration budgets, regional geo- logic and geotechnical data serve in defining structure and foundation costs by outlining potential foundation and access conditions along vartous segments of the route. The topic of special geologic problems, although belonging to each of the previous three, is described separately here for enphasis. Many of the large cost overruns in transmisson line construction and maintenance occur because unfavorable ground conditions were not properly identified at an early stage in the exploration pro- gram. Many of these problems are regional, so a catalog of all possible problens would require space beyond the scope of this report. A few specific problems are described below for illustration of how preliminary geologic information can iden- tify certain obvious problems to the transmission line engineer and help to avoid costly surprises during construction or operation. 1 Collapsing Soils There are two major categories of collapsing soils in the U.S. the loessial soils of the midwest and the arid soils of the western and southwestern innermontane basins. When wetted, these soils can exhibit dramatic volumetric reduction, resulting in as much as sev- eral feet (a meter or more) of settlement at the ground surface, especially where drainage has been rerouted as_a result of improper construction techniques. While the presence of collapsing soils at a particular structure location could be identified only by means of a detailed map or soi] sample, the potential for such soils in certain areas will help in planning exploration strategies. 2 Black Shales Certain areas of the country are underlain by notorious sedimentary rocks collectively known as “black shales". In general, these racks tend to be extremely weak when sheared parallel to bedding planes, and can cause access and slope stability problens for transmission Tine structures. particularly troublesome charac- teristic is their chenical composition, which may include signi~ ficant fractions of pyrite. This mineral attacks concrete and, in extreme cases, can reduce a footing or drilled shaft to virtually cohesiontess sand in a matter of several years. The possibility of this can be identified from regional geologic information, and the proper tests can be requested early in the exploration phase to determine if pyrite is present. 3 Karst Topography Regions underlain by limestone are subject to dissolution and the format ion of sinkholes and underground cavities. While sinkholes may appear at the surface as merely a subtle depression of the soil, a subsurface profile may show that at the sinkhole, the bed- rock’ surface plunges deeply, making an adequate bearing stratun be- yond the reach of economical foundation elenents, Karst terrain is readily identified on small scale geologic or topographic maps, and 44early identification of areas prone to karst ification can greatly aid in planning the exploration strategy for a transmission line. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS Topographic maps, available from the U.S. Geological Survey, are widely used to plan routes, determine preliminary elevations, slope angles and types of ground cover, and assess nearby land uses. Each quadrangle map is designated by the nane of acity, town or prominent feature within it, and on the margins of the map are printed the nanes of adjoining published quadrangle maps. The maps are printed in three colors. Cultural features, such as roads, railroads, cities and towns are in black; water features are in blue; and features of relief, such as hills, mountains and valleys are shown by brown contour lines. On maps that contain supplemental information, additional colors are used, such as green for woodland areas. Somewhat Tess widely recognized is the application of these maps for determining geologic conditions along a proposed route, In the northern portion of the U.S., for example, glaciation has left a characteristic series of landforms that commonly can be identified by analyzing the contours on a topographic map. By conbining ‘this process with an understanding of the geologic materials that make up the vari- ous landforms, a trained interpreter can in many instances predict foundation con- ditions through glaciated terrain with little field work and at very modest cost These sane techniques can be applied to other types of terrain such as coastal plains, river floodplains, karst (limestone) topography, mountainous terrains and others. Salisbury and Atwood (13) present a descriptive study of the use of topographic maps; this study consists of a folio of several dozen topographic maps and their geologic interpretations. Although more than 70 years old, this study is a classic one that presents an extrenely useful reference for anyone using topographic maps for engineering purposes. REMOTE SENSING Remote sensing constitutes one of the most useful and inexpensive tools for plan- ning transmission lines and structure foundations. In addition to showing terrain, ground cover and adjacent land uses, aerial photographs at an appropriate scale re- veal probable foundation conditions. These photographs also provide information on existing roads and trails, which is particularly useful in planning access and mo- bilization of exploration and construction equipment along a right-of-way. 45Remote sensing refers to a group of related techniques for gathering data by means of electromagnetic radiation. The most useful tool for use in transmission Tine studies 1s the black and white, vertical aerial photograph, taken with stereo over- Jap and with panchromatic Film at scales of about 1:12,000 to 1:20,000 (1000 to 1667 feet to the inch). Other types of images include infrared and multispectral photographs and images, high-altitude photographs and satellite images, side-look- ing radar, aerial magnetics, aerial gravity and others. Most of these other types of data have found only limited application in the geotechnical planning of trans~ mmission lines because conventional black and white photographs provide tre best resolution for the items of interest, such as topography, geology and cultural features, One exception is the color infrared photograph which sonet mes shows moisture conditions even where the soil is covered by vegetation. As discussed by Rodgers and Beccasio (14), the results of photo interpretation can be compiled onto a series of topographic and/or profile strip maps. These maps de- pict the geology and terrain along the transmission line route by outlining areas with similar types of soil or bedrock and identifying areas of potential problems such as landsliding, poor foundation soils or flooding. The photogeologic maps can also be used to lay out the field exploration program. The advantaye of using aerial photographs at this stage of the planning is that borings can be concentrated in those areas where problems are most likely to occur or can be assigned at locations to confirm the photogeologic interpretations. In addition, the photographs are particularly helpful in assessing access to drilling sites. Normally, the geologic interpretation of aerial photographs is accomplished by means of landform (terrain) analysis. Landform analysis is based on the concept that certain geologic materials and processes combine to form a limited number of characteristic patterns on aerial photographs. By recognizing these patterns, 2 trained interpreter can infer both the surface and shallow subsurface materials present in the landform and the processes that caused the landform. In one opera- tion, therefore, the interpreter can sunnarize the probable foundation conditions at a location and can also detect potential hazards caused by geologic processes. Classic descriptions of the interpretation of aerial photographs by means of land- form analysis are given in: detail in: (17 through 27). (15, 16). Landform analysis is also described in In landform analysis, specific and classifiable patterns are identified on aerial 4-6photographs and used to infer surface and subsurface conditions. Approximately three dozen basic landforms have been identified throughout the world, and a trained interpreter can recognize the patterns regardless of their global location. The basic units are generally classified in the following generic categories: 1 Residual soils 2. Wind-transported soils 3. Katerlaid soils 4 Ice-transported soils 5 Gravity-transported soils 6. Sedimentary rocks 7 Metamorphic rocks 8. Igneous rocks These categories are rather general, and combinations are common, such as ice- ‘transported soils over metamorphic rocks which are common in the northeastern por tions of the United States. To identify the basic landforms, interpreters observe the Following types of infor- mation on the photographs: iv Topography 2 Drainage patterns 3 Erosion 4 Tone (coloration) 5 Vegetation and cultural features Through training and experience, an interpreter can use these features to infer the type of geologic materials and geomorphic processes at work in a given area. For example, clay soils tend to be poorly drained when compared with sandy soils, with the result that drainage patterns in clay soils tend to be more closely spaced than those in sandy soils, where a larger fraction of the incident rainfall seeps into the ground rather than running off. In addition, gullies in clay soils tend to be U-shaped, while quilies in sandy soils tend to be V-shaped. Furthermore, sandy soils tend to retain less moisture than clay soils and have much lighter tonal ex- pression on photographs, while clay soils appear much darker.Similar reasoning can be applied to other types of landforms and can be used to distinguish various types of rocks, soils and geologic agents such as landsliding, coastal or riparian erosion and karst terrain. Once the transmission line route has been photographed and interpreted, structure location can proceed with less likelihood of major relocation than if structures are located simply on the basis of a regular spacing interval. In conjunction with topographic maps, structures can be positioned to make use of those materials known to have generally favorable bearing characteristics, In many cases it {s possible to avoid, by means of photo- geologic maps, materials likely to have low bearing capacity, to present construc- tion problems or to pose a threat to the future integrity of the line, As an example, consider the siting of a transmission line across a portion of a river floodplain. By meandering back and forth across the floodplain, rivers leave a characteristic series of arcuate deposits of sand and gravel (old, buried chan- nels}, silt (natural levees), clays (oxbow lake bottoms) and organic soils (back~ swamp areas). By utilizing the subtle variations in tone, topography, drainage pattern, erosion and vegetation, a trained interpreter can identify the various subsurface materials from aerial photographs to maximize the probability of siting a structure on suitable foundation materials such as sand and gravel. Most utilities that have used aerial photographic methods have become rapidly convinced of their usefulness and cost-effectiveness and have continued to use the technique routinely in subsequent transmission line projects. AERIAL RECONNAISSANCE Many transmission line studies use aerial reconnaissance by helicopter or light plane to supplement the interpretation of geologic and geotechnical conditions made with maps and existing aerial photographs. Because flight time is relatively ex- pensive, those involved with aerial reconnaissance should first acquaint themselves with the route by means of the available maps and photographs. In this way, the terrain will appear faniliar, and flight time can be concentrated in the most problematic areas. One or more cameras with color film and a range of Tenses usually prove useful in recording actual ground conditions. Focal lengths fron wide angle to telephoto are particularly convenient for this type of work. Shutter speeds of 1/260 second or faster minimize blur caused by vibration. The 1981 cost of aerial reconnaissance ranges from about $75 per hour for a small, 4-8light plane to more than $350 per hour for a helicopter. The capability of the helicopter for close and slow speed observation, however, is a significant advan- tage in many areas. A cost-effective compromise is to first fly the entire route by Tight plane and then to investigate troublesome areas in detail by helicopter. GROUND GEOLOGIC SURVEYS Ground surveys can be used to obtain detailed information on topography, landforms, soil and rock conditions, geologic processes and ground-water conditions. In these surveys, geologists commonly record qualitative and quantitative observations on a strip map of suitable scale by means of symbols and colored pencils. These meps can then be used to calibrate the interpretations made on photogeologic maps es well as to accumulate data to guide the test boring program. The scale of a geologic map has a large influence on the time required to make it and on the level of detail that it can show. A good base map for transmissior Tine studies is the 7.5" U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle sheet, which has a scale of 1:24,000. On these maps, one inch equals 2000 feet. Alternately, if a larger scale is desired, the quadrangle maps can be photographically enlarged to any desired scale. Enlargements greater than about four times, however, generally Prove unsatisfactory because of the lack of topographic detail. The major points to note in a ground survey include items from the list below: 1 Phys iography type of landform ‘topographic features orientation of features slope processes =-other geologic processes 2 Soil Conditions soil type approximate gradation --density --moisture, color, odor =-erosion characteristics 3 Rock Conditions --location of rock outcrops --rock type --rock mineralogy and structure 4-9=-hardness --degree of weathering --spacing and orientation of fractures --approximate depth to rock 4. Water Conditions --location of standing water and seeps --evidence of artesian water approximate depth to groundwater unusual color or odor to water A complete outline of all features of engineering geologic interest falls outside the scope of this report; however, references cited at the end of this section de- scribe considerations and methods for carrying out such investigations and for in- terpreting the resulting data. SUMMARY Reconnaissance techniques provide an extremely valuable means of obtaining prelimi~ nary geologic and geotechnical data for transmission line engineering. The tech- niques are based largely on the interpretation of features displayed on maps and photographs, or observed during air or ground surveys. Collectively, the interpre tations lead to a prediction of the likely surface and subsurface conditions, which in turn allows more reliable line planning and structure siting, as well as optimi~ zation of the field exploration program. REFERENCES 1. Hunt, C. B., Physiography of the United States, W. H. Freeman and Company, Sai aie ac ocy Ry 96Y A 2. Fenneman, N. M., Physiography of the Western United States, McGraw-Hill Book Company.’ New Yorks WY, SSS ES peo 3. Fenneman, N. M., Physiography of the Eastern United States, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY, 1938, 7IEp. 4. Woods, K. B., Miles, R. D. and Lovell, C. W.y dr., “Origin, Formation and Distribution of Soils in North America", Chapter i in Foundation Engineering, Eds by Ge A Leonards, McGraw-Hill Book’ Company, New YarKe WY, 1962. Bee 1-65. Compton, R. R., Manual of Field Geology, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1965, 378 p.10. u. 12. 13. 4. 15. 16. VW. 18. 19. 20. a. 22. 23. Geiger, A. F. and Hatheway, A. W., Editors, “Engineering Geology for Geolo- gists", Short course lecture notes available from American Geological Insti- tute, 5205 Leasburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, 248 p. Glossop, R., “The Rise of Geotechnology and Its Influence on Engineering Practice", Geotechnique, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 1968, pp. 107-150. Krynine, D. P. and Judd, W. R., Principles of Engineering Geology and Geateennicg, HeGraw-Hilt Book Conpany, New Yore NY, 19ST, 730 po Lahee, F. H., Field Geology, 6th Ed., McGraw Hi11 Book Company, New York, NY, 1961, 926 p. Leggett, R. F., Geology and Engineering, 2nd Ed., McGraw Hill Book Company, ew ore Ea pa Paige, S., Editor, "Application of Geology to Engineering Practice: Berkey Volume", Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, 1950, 327 p. Sowers, G. F., Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical En- gineering, 4h Eds MaciiTYan Publishing Covy New York, NY=-1979, 621 pe Salisbury, R. D. and Atwood, W. W., “The Interpretation of Topographic Maps", Professional Paper 60, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, OC, 1908. Rodgers, T. E., dr. and Beccasio, A. D., "Photogeologic Applications in Transmission Line Engineering", Meeting of the Southeastern Electric Exchange, Engineering and Operation Division, Transmission Section, Bal Harbour, FL, May 9-11, 1979, Ray, R. G., "Aerial Photographs in Geologic Interpretation and Mapping”, Pro- fesSional Paper 373, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC, 1960. Scovel, J. L., O'Brien, E. J., McCormack, J.C. and Chapman, R. B., Atlas of Landforms, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1965, 164 p. Reeves, R. G., Editor-in-Chief, Manual of Remote Sensing, 3rd Ed., Anerican Soctety of Phatogrametry, Falls Church, VA, ? VoIs-; 1975, 2148 p. avery, T., Interpretation of Aerial Photographs, 3rd Ed., Burgess Publishing Conpany, hinneapeTYss Wiy-1977, 392-p- Colwell, 8. N., Editor, Manual of Photographic Interpretation, American Soctety’of Phatogrametry, Washingeons $C. 1960, SSB Be Lueder, D. R., Aerial Photographic Interpretation - Principles and Applica~ tions,’ MeGran’ HITT 800k Company, New Yorks NY, 1955, 462 po Miller, V. C. and Miller, C. F., Photogeology, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY, 1961, 248 p. Mollard, J. D., "Airphoto Analysis and Interpretation", Manual available from the author, 616 McCallum Hill Building, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, 1960. Mollard J. D., “Landforms and Surface Materials of Canada", 6th Ed., Manual, available from the author, 616 McCallun Hill Building, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. 424. 25. 26. 2. Smith, H. T. U., Aerial Photographs and Their Applications, Appleton-Century- Crofts Company, STONE I Spurr, S. H., Photogrammetry and Photo-Interpretation, 2nd Ed., Ronald Press Company, New YORE. AVS TSIE2TE pe Strandberg, C. H., Aerial Discovery Manual, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1967, 249 p. Way, D. S., Terrain Analysis ~ A Guide to Site Selection Using Aerial Photographic” Tnterpretatton, Dowden Rutentnsen-E Ross, Thess New Tork, NY, BaapSection § FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS A field exploration program is conducted after initial site reconnaissance to pro- vide site-specific data for design. The goal is to obtain quantitative informa:ion about the geometry and engineering properties of the subsurface materials at a par- ticular site. During the field exploration program, three basic types of inforna- tion are obtaine 1 geometric data determined by drilling a test boring, sampling the Subsurface materials, classifying the retrieved samples and re- cording the information on a boring log 2 property data resulting from conducting in-situ tests, for ex- ample, the standard penetration test, cone penetration test, vane shear test or pressuremeter test, to measure one or more engi- neering properties such as strength or deformability 3 observational data such as groundwater levels, voids encountered during drilling, loss of drilling fluid, etc., which yield val- uable information regarding potential design’ and/or construction problens AN] of these data are obtained in the field and must be recorded at the time of observation, because they can not be obtained later. The only exception is sample classification, which often can be improved in the laboratory. The importance of proper field inspection, by qualified personnel, in obtaining these data was de- scribed in Section 3, but is noted again for emphasis. The hardware and procedures for conducting a field exploration program are de- scribed in detail in a nunber of books and design manuals, and many organizations have developed their own in-house handbook of field procedures describing methods for conducting routine subsurface explorations. Because of this readily-availale body of information, the present section omits specific details of conducting the tests. A general outline of available tools and methods is described, and appro- priate references cite additional sources of information. GENERAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Drilling, sampling and in-situ testing often provide the only measured engineering 54properties of the subsurface materials. Although these procedures provide sone of the more useful data for designing foundations, the cost is generally higher than for any of the reconnaissance methods. Therefore, in no other phase of site ex- ploration is the tradeoff between costs and benefits more evident. Before planning a field exploration, it is important first to determine the data requirements, which in general will depend on the design method(s) to be used and the ease with which design changes can be made in the field. The exploration method should provide the data needed for the method(s) adopted. For example, if ‘the design method requires only the soil strength parameters, it would be unneces- sary to measure the in-situ state of stress. As a general rule of thumb, borings should be taken to a firm stratum or at least extend below the anticipated foundation level to a depth at which the stress in- crease from the foundation will be less than 10% of the in-situ effective stress. Subsurface boulders pose a persistent problem in field exploration of granular soils. Countless borings extended to "bedrock" have been found during construct ion to have met refusal on a boulder or detached fragments of bedrock. The only way to avoid this type of construction surprise is to drill through rock at least five to ten feet (1.5 to 3m) where it is encountered. In cases where test borings are not made at each structure location, the soil prop- erties are extrapolated from borings at wide spacings, based on the judgnent of the designer. To compensate for the uncertainty associated with the extrapolation, the foundation designs tend to be conservative. The cost/benefit tradeoff is one of determining whether the foundation and construction costs potentially can be re- duced by further field exploration. A general approach to this question was dis- cussed in Section 3. The qualitative information that can be obtained from a field exploration program is more difficult to evaluate in a cost/benefit analysis. Much of the information noted by an experienced field engineer regarding water conditions, poor sofls and shallow rock may not translate directly into quantitative design parameters, but they may nevertheless make a considerable impact on construction costs. For ex- ample, groundwater problems constitute one of the most commonly cited construction difficulties. Water inflow may be greater than anticipated, or soi] may cont inual- ly cave into an excavation. Construction problems associated with water can trans- Tate into days of downtine at significant costs that may be many times larger than 5-2the price of a few additional borings. Because the groundwater relationships are uncertain and difficult to quantify, judgments can not normally be based on a rig- orous analysis. Experience and a qualitative understanding of the tradeoffs form the best data base for such decisions. It is important to remember that fixed costs constitute a major expense in a field exploration progran. The incremental cost of a few additional borings may be Tow, especially when compared with the potential savings in avoiding construction de- lays. Further information regarding the planning of exploration prograns is presented in standard references (e.g., 1 discussion of the merits and hazards of field exploration programs. Glossop (4) presents a useful historical review of the development of engineering geology and 2). Osterberg (3) presents a particularly cogent. Soil mechanics, and lists various types of exploration techniques and their appli- cation to engineering projects. DRILLING AND SAMPLING Methods of advancing a test boring range from the simple hand auger to relatively complex "undisturbed" sampling or testing devices. In a general way, test borings can be classified into two types: preliminary and detailed. Preliminary Methods Preliminary methods for drilling and sampling in soil include the various forms of hand augers, probes, wash borings and machine auger borings. The hand auger, shown in Figure 5-1, can be advanced to depths of 5 to 8 meters (16 to 26 ft) in appro- priate soils, and can be a useful and inexpensive means of obtaining samples for Classification of in-situ materials. The U.S. Department of Agriculture uses hand augers routinely for shallow classification in soils mapping throughout the U.S. It 1s often useful to know the depth to rock without obtaining detailed information on the characteristics of the overburden. In such instances, it is common practice to drive a drill rod into the soil until refusal is reached. This method is inex- pensive and fs particularly useful for detecting undulations in the bedrock surface once the character of the soil has been determined by means of a test boring. The dynamic cone penetration test (Figure 5-2) constitutes a more advanced form of probe that is used extensively for small foundation investigations. In this test, 5-3\ Figure 5-1. Iwan Hand Auger Source: Reference (5), p. 12. ok Skier ot Th Figure 5-2. Dynamic Cone Penetroneter Source: Reference (5), p. 19. 54a drill rod is fitted with a 51 mm (2 in) diameter conical point and is driven with a falling weight into the soil. The blow counts provide a measure of the consis- tency of the soil. A major disadvantage of this method fs that refusal could indi- cate either bedrock or boulders. Therefore, the method is most reliable in soils containing few or no large particles. In contrast, the use of probes is likely to give misleading information in heterogeneous soils such as glacial tills. Wash borings are advanced by means of a bit that both chops and jets its way through the soil or soft rock. Figure 5-3 illustrates several types of chopping bits fn use, Wash borings are now used infrequent ly because modern methods provide less disturbed samples which also can be located more accurately in the soil column. Augers (Figures 5-4 and 5-5) are commonly used to advance exploratory borings. In many cases, the auger has a hollow stem through which various sampling and/or test- ing devices can be lowered; the auger therefore serves both to advance the hole and carry cuttings to the surface as well as to case the hole to prevent caving. A particularly lucid, non-technical description of various forms of preliminary boring techniques, including photographs, is given by Acker (5) Detailed Methods Detailed drilling methods include some form of soil sample recovery from specific depths by means of driven (hammered), pushed or rotated sampling devices. Rock coring is also included. ‘The most common form of driven sampler is the Standard Split Spoon, shown in Figure 5-6a, which is also used for the Standard Penetration Test. This device retrieves an intact but relatively disturbed sample that can be correlated with depth to within several inches under normal conditions. The driving resistance yields the Standard Penetration Test N value (described under test methods). Several varia~ ‘tions of driven samplers exist; some include thin-walled liners (Figure 5-6b), thin-walled liner rings (the so-called "Dames and Moore” sampler) or a specially: thickened head section to withstand driving in hard soils (the “Lynac” sampler, Figure 5-6c). Relatively undisturbed samples can be retrieved with a wide variety of thin-walled samplers that are pushed, rather than hammered, into the soil. Figure 5-7a shows a thin-walled sampler in its simplest form, which is called a "Shelby Tube". This 5-5Figure 5-3. Chopping Bits Source: Reference (5), p. 36. Cuttings carried to surface. Figure 5-4, Continuous Flight Augers Source: Reference (5), p. 43 5-6Lenora - ty Figure 5-8. Auger Cutter Heads and Nomenclature 8 axe socxer_\, Source: Reference (5), p. 45 sampler, useful mainly in moderately soft soils, has a smaller end bearing surface area than the split spoon samplers and can therefore sample with considerably less soil disturbance. Various improvements have been made over the years for specific soil conditions, including a fixed piston to prevent sample contamination by dri1- ling fluids (Figure 5-7b), and various forms of rotating heads to penetrate hard soils with minimal disturbance, The thin-walled samplers described above are used to retrieve fine-grained samples for laboratory testing of engineering properties; in the U.S., they find limited use at present in transmission line engineering. For structures where soil condi- tions are particularly troublesome, such as a deep deposit of soft clay, or where a particularly high level of reliability is required, these devices constitute a use- ful method for securing relatively undisturbed samples for laboratory testing. When rock is encountered, drilling and sampling is done by the integral process of 57(Standard sit tube sampler Sphere somo wah liner ne AS &_Lynac Sampler (US. Patent No. 2,795,395) Figure 5-6, Driven Samplers Source: Reference (5), pp. 56, 57 Thin wat ube sper leching cone Aetesting od Verte head Thin mall bra! stn 1k Statonary piston sampler Figure 5-7. Thin Wall Samplers Source: Reference (5), p. 63, 69 5-8coring. A rotary drilling process is employed and samples are retrieved in a core barrel. Many variations exist in the drilling equipment, core barrels and cutting bits. Single-tube and double-tube core barrels are illustrated in Figure 5-8. Double-tube barrels, N size or larger (nominal 2 in. or 50 mm diameter core), are to be preferred for good quality sampling. Core tte (A) SINGLE-TUBE Reoming shelly Core lifter (8) DouBLe-TUBE Figure 5-8, Core Barrels Source: Reference (6), p. 138 Additional information regarding the types of drilling and sampling devices is given by Acker (5). A classic treatise on older field sampling methods is the study by Hvorslev (7), which contains numerous photographs and results of studies on the effectiveness of different sanplers. Major supplements to Hvorsiev's study ‘include the works by Rowe (8, 9). CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS Classification of the subsurface materials is an integral part of the drilling and Sampling operation. Numerous recommendations have been made for classification or identification systems, some for general use and some for specific use such as highways. For soils, perhaps the most common general engineering classification system fs the Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM 0 2487 (10). This systen divides all sofls into either fine-grained or coarse-grained categories, depending on whether the majority of the particles are larger or smaller than the number 200 sieve (0.076 mm). The 200 sieve separates those particles that can be seen with the naked eye from those that cannot. Although the Unified System requires laboratory tests for grain size and plasticity 5-9characteristics, approximate classifications can be made in the field using the procedures described in ASTM D 2488 (11). Accurate field classification requires experience and feedback fron the laboratory to calibrate visual judgment. Labora tory tests lead to more accurate field classification, and therefore reduced need for future laboratory classification, when the results are transmitted to field personnel along with the samples they have classified visually. Coarse-grained soils are generally sieved for classification in the laboratory, while fine-grained soils are classified on the basis of Atterberg limits. In the field, coarse-grained soils are classified visually by estimating the relative.per- centages of various size fractions. Fine-grained soils are classified in the field by subjecting the fraction smaller than the nunber 40 sieve to a series of three hand tests. The classification categories are given in Figure 5-9; the procedures for the classification of fine-grained soils are described in Figure 5-10. Addi- tional details are given in ASTM D 2498 (11). Another useful approach for soil identification is that suggested by Burmster (2). and does not require the formalized laboratory tests necessary for the Unified Sys- tem, It fs a conventent approach for field use and 1s commonly used in sone areas of the U.S. This technique was developed for identifying soils on a visual-manual basis Rock classification is not as standardized as soil classification. Numerous class- ification schemes are in common use; some are based on geologic nomenclature, some (on engineering properties, but most use a hybrid combination of the two. Because of the wide range of engineering behavior exhibited by rock, many specialized classification schemes have been devised for specific types of engineering prob- lems, such as tunneling, slope stability and mining. For transmission line engineering, the most important physical characteristics of rock are strength and ease of excavation and, to a lesser extent, permeability and compressibility. Therefore, a classification scheme based on rock hardness and properties of the discontinuities is most useful. for this purpose, the simple Schmidt hanmer test (13) or the point load test (14) can be used to determine ap- proximate hardness or strength, and discontinuity spacing can be indexed with the RQD rating (15). The RQD (rock quality designation) is basically a modified core recovery and is equal to the sum of the lengths of sound pieces of core recovered, longer than 100 nm (4 in), expressed as a percentage of the length of the drill run,€L *d *(G) aouatesay :aounos “6-5 aunty qdeug vo}yeois4sse19 LL05 paysiun wi NoUNaLUIsse79 05 aa14INA 511Shgiidry tant bt conn tinged ye ee Figure 5-10. Field Identification Procedures for Fine-Grained Soils Source: Reference (6), p. 12For more detailed description of rock and discontinuity characteristics, the Association of Professional Geological Scientists (16) has compiled a useful manual for field logging and description procedures. Also, a basic geotechnical descrip- ‘tion method has recently been proposed by an International Society of Rock Mechanics Commission (17); this systen is likely to be used widely in the future. Additional information on logging and rock classification is given in: (18 through 23). During the drilling, sampling and classification in the field, the data and abser- vations are recorded on boring logs. Many variations exist in the format used for these logs; one example is given in Figure 5-11, Regardless of the precise format, the information to be included should be as complete and precise as possible. Table 5-1 provides a check list of the minimum information to be obtained; quanti- tative values should be incorporated wherever possible. Tables 5-2 and 5-3 show the type of information useful for description of soil and rock in the field. The boundary between soil and rock is often less than distinct. Innumerable con- tractor claims have been based on ambiguity in this area, since rock excavation is more difficult and costly than soil excavation. Care mst be exercised in classi- fying rock, and specifications should always include a detailed definition of what constitutes rock. For transmission line engineering, a strength definition may be most appropriate. IN-SITU TEST METHODS In-situ tests are conducted to determine specific engineering properties. Many types of in-situ tests have been developed, but only four have becone widely used for soil investigations at the present time. In-situ tests on rock are not in- cluded in this section because of their limited use in transmission line engin- eering; the reader is referred to Goodman (21) for details. The four most common in-situ tests on soil are: 1, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Cone Penetration Test (CPT) 3. Vane Shear Test (VST) 4. Pressureneter Test. (PMT) These tests are described in the following sections.BORING Los cos DEPTH oF waTeR_F1.F7 casi ouy oaTe ——loare, rant [sxouno evevarion. 1 oe f q - pong | PRET ia wae EB [SSI Ram ae Figure 5-11, See ea SE Example Test Boring LogTable 5-1 CHECK LIST OF TEST BORING INFORMATION NEEDED Project, location and personnel (contractor, driller, inspector) Date to start and finish hole Boring nunber, location and surface elevation Type of drilling equipment used Method of advancing hole (driven casing, hollow sten auger, etc.) and sizes of hole and casing or auger; note use of drilling mud Groundwater elevation(s) and observation date(s) For driven casing =- size of drive weight and free fall distance blows per foot to advance casing For split spoon sampling + description and size of sampler size and type of drive hammer and free fall distance blows per 6 inch to drive sampler, and SPT N values For thin-wall tube sampling =- description and size of sampler stress to push sampler sample recovery For rock coring + description and size of core barrel =- water pressure, feed rate, bit pressure and rotation rate == core recovery and RQ] Upper and loner elevation of each sample or core Description and classification of each sample or core Appropriate details for in-situ tests such as vane shear, pressureneter, etc. Results of simple tests such as pocket penetrometer, Schmidt hamer, etc. Remarks and miscellaneous conditions == loss of circulating water, or sample occurrence of boulders, cavities or voidsTable 5-2 INFORMATION NEEDED FOR SOIL DESCRIPTION ‘Typical name (examples are shown in classiteation chart. “Approximate percentages of gravel Bnd sand Maximum size of paces (includ ing cobbles and boulders) ape of the coun. grins eng tant Surface Soodiion of the coum Hardness of the coane graine— Postible breakdown into smaller | Fite eee x x (Color (in moka condition for fne= trained soils and fraction of Snes In course grined sol) | x Moisture (Gry. moist. wet, sau | | rated) xx | ox | oe | xx organ oncat — x x x | x Planicty—degree (oonplantis, tow, eda ig) an aes, trained sol ‘and of thee trained faction jn coor gained ei x | xx | om | x ssuvturs (avila, toes aad Seams, laminations, gig dp and fe’ and. thine of ayer honeycomb, foectlent rot foley ec) = xx | x Cement —9pe SGT |x Degree. of compacinss—ioow or dense (excepting lays) x x | x | x Cconsteney in united and Fe | ‘Doled nates (lays onl). xx xx xx Source: Reference (6), p. 19rapanog NOLLd1¥9S30 ¥90Y YOs C3033N NOTLVANOANT €-S atceL 57Standard Penetration Test The standard penetration test (SPT) can be performed during a test boring progran to obtain a measure of the soil resistance to dynamic penetration, as well as to obtain a disturbed sample of the soil. Although the test can be performed in a wide variety of soils, the most consistent results are found in sandy soils where large gravel particles are absent, Almost all U.S. soil drilling rigs are equipped to perform the SPT. many engineers in the U.S.A. do not recognize As described by Sctmertmann (25), * that the SPT N values provide, when used together with sample classification, at best only rough qualitative data for preliminary design purposes" and "consider the SPT as merely a convenient method for obtaining stratigraphy and samples for clas- sification and place no design reliance on N values". Procedure, The detailed procedure for the standard penetration test is described in ASTM 0 1586 (26). Additional useful information is given in: (2, 25 30). Schmertmann (31) presents a complete theoretical analysis of the dynamics of the SPT. To perform the test, the drilling crew, after advancing the test horing to the de- sired depth, first removes the string of drill rods slowly and cleans ou: the hole to the desired depth of testing. During this procedure, the head of water in the hole is maintained at or above the groundwater level to avoid an inflow of water ‘into the hole that can disturb the soil and cause erroneously low (conservative) test results, After the drilling tools are removed, a standard 51 mm (2 in) 0.0. split spoon sampler, shown in Figure 5-6a, is attached to the drill rods and lower- ed carefully to the bottom of the hole, With the sampler resting at the bottom of the hole, a 63.6 kg (140 Ib) weight is allowed to fall freely 762 mm (30 in) to a collar that is attached to the top of the drill string until 460 m (18 in) of penetration has been achieved (or 100 blows have been applied). Alternatively, but Jess commonly, a 63.6 kg (140 Tb) pin-guided weight is allowed to drop freely on ‘the top of the drill string. The setup for the SPT is shown in Figure 5-12, The number of blows is recorded for each of three 152 mm (6 in) intervals; the First is generally considered a seating drive, and the nunber of blows for the Final 305 mm (12 in) is reported as the N value. After the sampler has been brought back to the surface, the samples are removed and classified, before being placed into jars, labeled and sealed with wax for transport.Figure 5-12. Driving Sampler for Standard Penetration Test Soures Reference (5), p. 55 Although the N value was originally developed for estimating the design of driven piles, it has since been correlated with a nunber of soil engineering properties. Many of these correlations are crude and have little theoretical basis. Table 5-4a shows a general correlation of N value with relative density, the latter paraneter itself being extremely difficult to determine with accuracy, even in the lab- oratory. One of the more connon uses of the N value is to estimate the relative density and friction angle, and the bearing capacity factors for spread footings in sandy soil. Figure 5-13a shows the correlation of Gibbs and Holtz (32) for relax tive density of sands, and Figure 5-13b shows the correlation of Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (33) for friction angle and bearing capacity factors. Figure 5-13c is used to estimate the correction factor for overburden stress to be used with Figure 5-135. The various correlations with N value usually are conservative. Several authors have also correlated N values with the unconfined conpressive strength of clays (Table 5-4b), but these correlations should be used with caution for design purposes because most clays are at least minimally sensitive. A dynamic test such as the SPT may imply a strength significantly different from that which exists in the field.Table 5-4 PROPERTIES OF SOILS VS. SPT N VALUES a, Relative density of granular soils vs. N value N Value o-4 4-10 10 - 30 30 - 50 > 50 ‘Approximate Angle of Relative Density very loose loose medium dense very dense b. Consistency of cohesive soils vs. N value N Value - 15 15 - 30 Source: 28 30 36 Friction, @ (degrees) 28 30 36 al a Approximate Undrained Shear Strength, s, Consistency s/n very soft 200 Reference (1), pp. 310, 347 5-20 tsf < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 = W/2 ye-1b. je > aol Loja eis 7 | g | = ¢ o 20 oO BO a 105, wt mr : a, Correlation of N with Relative Density as a Function of Overburden Stress Poe very dente, Siero Bee Correction factor Cu weer fonda peetaianmtoce Ki Yor + 40 fF a pe, i $n} |e gs > oa _| 3s 20 peal Sas P a ¥ so] y g ‘awn Oa Angie of internal trichan, 4, degrees c. Correction Factor to 8 for Correlation of N with ¢, N Overburden Stress Figure 5-13. Correlations of N Values with Sand Parameters Reference (33), pps 310, 312 Source: Reference (32), p. 3 5-21Advantages and Disadvantages. The advantage of the SPT is that it is relatively quick and simple to perform. It is inexpensive and provides, with one procedure, both a sample and a soil test result. The test also provides a useful index of the relative strength and compressibility of the soil in the immediate vicinity of the test. The disadvantage of the SPT is that it has many sources of error, both random and (26 through 32). The accuracy of the test is in large part dependent on the details of the procedure followed and the equipment used by the drilling crew, so that the care and know- ledge of the drillers forms a critical factor in the test accuracy. systematic. Good discussions of these errors are given in The SPT should not be relied on in soils containing coarse gravel, cobbl2s or boul- ders because the sampler can become obstructed, giving erroneously high and uncon- servative N values. The test should also not be relied on for cohesionlass silts because dynamic effects at the sampler tip can lead to erroneous strength and com- pressibility determinations. In addition, the test has little meaning in sensitive clays. In such soils, the SPT yields results inconsistent with in-situ conditions. If the head of water in the hole is not maintained at or above the groundwater level, piping can occur at Une bottom of the hole which can Tousen the sviT and in= validate the test results. This problem can be minimized by withdrawing the drill- ing tools very slowly or by returning water to the hole as the drilling tools are removed prior to an SPT. Studies by Serota and Lowther (34) and Kovacs (35) showed that the SPT is highly dependent on the method of winding the hammer rope around the cathead on the drill rig. While seemingly a minor detail, the former study showed that when two turns of rope were used, as is common practice in the U.S., N values were about 40% high- er than when a free-fall trip monkey or one turn was used. This study illustrates the level of uncertainty involved. In addition, many older correlations of N values with engineering properties were based on pin-guided weights, which are no longer used for the SPT. The rod-guided hanmers in present use can lead to slightly higher (unconservat ive) N values. Sources of Error, Reliability and Cost. The SPT has nunerous sources of error that limit its use in foundation design. Table 5-5 lists many of the important sources of error and the probable effects on test results. Note that the factors that tend 5-22to increase the N values err on the unconservative side by overestimating soil strength and/or stiffness. However, the correlations of the SPT with engineering properties are inherent ly conservative. In addition to these sources of error, a number of soil mechanics factors affect the test results and the correlations of N value with engineering properties. These include grain size, shape and mineralogy, permeability, degree of saturation, ‘time lapse between drilling and testing, spacing of samples, soil sensitivity, depth of sampler penetration, relative depth of the boring and size of the ven: area of the sampler. The reliability of the SPT is best where is is used solely as an index test to de-~ termine the approximate strength and compressibilty of sandy soil strata for pre- Viminary design purposes. For example, a soil with an N value of 50 is unlikely to exhibit any major problems with respect to strength or compressibility for spread footings; on the other hand, a soil with an N value of 2 or 3 can be expected to pose significant difficulties. Arnold (36) collected a number of case histories where N values had been used predict the settlenent of footings, silos and F111 masses on sand. For each indi- vidual case, the calculated and observed settlenents were reported using @ new method (36). For 89 examples where the SPT was used, the average observed set=1e~ ment was 20k higher than the predicted settlenent, and about two-thirds of the pre- dictions fe11 between -40% and +80X, It is important to note, however, that none of these case histories involved uplift, which is likely to be a controlling factor in transmission line structure foundation design. Although it is difficult to quantify the costs of SPT in remote areas, one approach is to determine the daily drill rig charge and divide by the nunber of tests ob- tainable in one day, All-terrain vehicles in 1981 cost about $800 to $1000 per day and, during a typical day, 10 to 15 tests might be obtained. Therefore, the unit charge could be approximated as $50 to $100 per test, including drilling 1.0 to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft) beteen tests. The Figure listed above is intended only as a relative measure of the cost of performing the SPT for comparison with other field exploration techniques. Cone Penetration Test The cone penetration test (CPT), also known as the Dutch cone test, is a versatile sounding procedure that can be used to classify the materials in a soil profile and 5-23SOURCES OF ERROR IN THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST Table 5-5 Influence on Cause Effect N Value Inadequate cleaning SPT is not made in original increases of hole in-situ soil, Soil may become trapped in sampler and compressed as sanpler is driven, reducing recovery Failure to maintain Bottom of borehole may decreases adequate head of become quick water in the borehole Careless measurement. of Hanmer energy varies increases hamer drop (generally, variations Cluster on’the Tow side) Hammer weight inaccurate Hanmer energy varies increases or (arilier supplies weight; decreases variations of § - 7% are common) Hamner strikes dri11 Hanmer energy reduced increases rod collar eccentrically Lack of hamer free fall Hammer energy reduced ‘increases because of ungreased sheaves, new stiff rope on weight, more than two turns on cathead, incomplete release of rope during each drop Sampler driven above Sampler driven in dis- increases bottom of casing turbed, artificially greatly densified soil Careless blow count Inaccurate results increases or decreases Use of non-standard Correlations with stand- increases or sampler ard sanpler invalid decreases Coarse gravel or Sampler becomes clogged increases cobbles in soil or impeded Use of bent drill rods Inhibited transfer of increases energy of sampler 5-24to estimate their engineering properties. In the CPT, a conical penetrometer tip is slowly pushed into the ground and monitored. Modern devices, such as the ore shown in Figure 5-14, contain electrical transducers to measure both tip bearirg and side friction as the instrument is advanced; such devices are known as electric friction cone (Fugro) penetrometers. Mechanical versions are still used widely and are known as mechanical friction cone (Begenann) penetrometers (Figure 5-15). Some penetrometers lack the friction sleeve and measure only tip bearing. These devices provide less information about soil conditions. In common usage, all three devices are generally referred to as cone penetroneters. Cone penetrometers have been in general use since the 1930's in Europe, but only within the past decade have they gained wide usage in the U.S. Cone penetroneters can be enployed in a variety of soils and, although they do not provide a sample, ‘they have a number of advantages over the standard penetration test. The CPT, especially when performed with an electrical tip, provides a continuous log of soil conditions, while the SPT usually shows conditions only at discrete locations in the soil profile, typically at three to five foot (1.0 to 1.5 m) intervals. Be- cause the CPT measures two parameters, it ideally gives more information about in-situ soil consistency than the SPT. Procedure. The detailed procedure for the CPT is described in ASTM D 3441 (37). Additional information on testing procedures is given in: (38 through 47). Schmertmann (47) has prepared a particularly useful quide to the CPT. To perform the test, an electric cone penetrometer tip is attached to a string of steel rods and is pushed vertically into the ground at a constant rate of approxi- mately 20 mm (0.8 in)/sec. Wires from the transducers are threaded through the center of the rods, and the tip bearing and side friction are recorded continuously on-a strip chart recorder until the desired depth is reached. The procedure is modified slightly when a mechanical penetrometer tip is used. In this case, the penetrometer tip 1s connected to an inner set of rods and is first advanced about 40 mm (1.6 in), giving the tip bearing. With further thrusting, the tip engages the side friction sleeve and, as the inner rods advance, the rod force equals the sun of the tip bearing and side friction. The tip bearing is subtracted to give the side friction. Finally, the outer rods are pushed to collapse the entire device, and the process is repeated. This mechanical process has several important sources of error not characteristic of the electrical process and, where available, the electrical penetrometer is recommended over the mechanical penetrometer. 5-251 Con pint 0 em Figure 5-14. Electric Friction Cone Penetroneter Tip Source: Reference (37) + Pe 522 feel r= couases EXTENDED Figure 5-15, Mechanical (Begemann) Friction Cone Penetrometer Tip Source: Reference (37), p. 521 Reprinted with permission from the Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Copyright ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.The two most useful parameters measured by the test are the tip bearing, gc» and the side friction, fs. Figure 5-16 shows how these two parameters can be used to infer the composition of the soil. The CPT can be used where a sample is not needed and soil conditions do not prevent its penetration. In general, the CPT is less suitable in soils containing hard clays, cobbles or boulders, or cenented seams. Advantages and Disadvantages. The CPT has a nunber of advantages over other rou- tine forms of in-situ testing. Current trends indicate that usage will continue to increase as more engineers become familiar with the types of information that it provides, and as more drilling firms acquire the equipment to perform the test. The CPT is one of the fastest and least expensive forms of in-situ testing in rela~ tively soft or loose soils. It provides a rapid method of identifying potential problem soils, such as peat or soft clay strata, so that more sophisticated sam pling and testing procedures can be used as efficiently as possible. Typical pene- tration rates during testing average about 1 m per minute and, except for problens caused by cemented layers or gravel, penetration is interrupted only to add addi- tional rods as the test advances, Data are recorded concurrently with the test and, when the instrument is calibrated, the test personnel have a relatively minor effect on the results, compared to the SPT. The test can be performed in a wide range of soils, although hard soils or gravel cannot be penetrated at the present time. A significant advantage of the electric cone penetration test is that it provides a continuous record of soil conditions. Figure 5-17 shows sample test results along with the soil classification based on field examination, classification interpreted from CPT results, and classification based on laboratory tests. A comparison shows that the CPT interpretation of the soil types is very close to the laboratory clas- sification, while the correlation is poorer between the field classification and the other two. These results suggest that subsurface conditions may, in some instances, be inferred without retrieval of soil sanples. In general, however, samples should be obtained whenever feasible to confirm the interpretation of soil types made with the CPT. As with the SPT, the empirical correlations vary with soil type. The CPT also has several disadvantages. First, no sample is obtained. Second, many drilling contractors lack the equipment because the demand has been small 5-27