You are on page 1of 38

January 15, 2014

IEEE PES Winter Meeting New Orleans


Overhead Lines Subcommittee
Foundation Selection Process
By: Paul G Cass, P. E.
STRUCTURE FOUNDATION

THE FOUNDATION SELECTION
PROCESS SHOULD BE PART OF THE
STRUCTURE SELECTION PROCESS
FOUNDATION/STRUCTURE SELECTION IS
INFLUNCED BY:
ELECTRICAL CRITERIA AND EFFECTS
TOPOGRAPHY/GEOGRAPHY
SITING/ROW LIMITATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
GEOLOGY
ELECTRICAL CRITERIA AND EFFECTS
LINE VOLTAGE
LINE CURRENT
SINGLE/DOUBLE CIRCUITS
UNDERBUILD
EMF ISSUES
THESE CRITERIA AFFECT THE MINIMUM SIZE OF
STRUCTURE (CLEARANCES) AND LOADS (CONDUCTOR
SIZE)
TOPOGRAPHY/GEOGRAPHY
STRUCTURE SPACING /TYPE
ACCESS
CONSTRUCTABILITY
STREAMS/FLOODING
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
SITING/ROW LIMITATIONS
ROW WIDTH BLOWOUT STRUCTURE
SPACING
LOCATION AND QUANTITY OF ANGLE
STRUCTURES
AESTHETICS
RESTRICTIONS ON TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Wetland avoidance/restrictions
Construction noise
Endangered species restrictions
Time of construction restrictions
Type of construction limitations
GEOLOGY
WHERE IS TOP OF ROCK?
HARD ROCK ISSUES
WATER ISSUES
SOFT/USSTABLE SOIL ISSUES
LANDSLIDES/KARST/MINING/SUBSIDENCE
STRUCTURE CHOICES (TYP)
SELF SUPPORTING LATTICE STEEL TOWER
GUYED-V LATTICE STRUCTURE
STEEL POLE
CONCRETE POLE
WOOD POLE
STEEL POLE H-FRAME
WOOD H-FRAME
SELF SUPPORTING LATTICE
STEEL TOWER
Best For
High Voltage, large or bundled
conductor
Long Span Construction, hilltop to hill
top
Rigid termination or dead-end
structures
Low material cost
Worst For
High structure erection cost
Aesthetics
GUYED-V LATTICE STRUCTURE
Best For
High Voltage, large or bundled
conductor
Long Span Construction, hilltop to hill
top
Low material and erection cost
Worst For
Limited right-of-way width
STEEL, CONCRETE & WOOD POLES
Best For
General purpose structure for most
voltages and varied site conditions
Limited right-of-way widths
Worst For
Sites with shallow hard rock
Sites with deep soft soil
STEEL & WOOD POLE H-FRAMES
Best For
69 to 230kV lines
Medium span construction (400 to
800 feet)
Low cost materials and
construction
Can be guyed for longitudinal
capacity
Worst For
FOUNDATION TYPES
CHOICES
CYLINDRICAL FOUNDATIONS
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
GROUP ACTION FOUNDATIONS
ANCHOR TYPE FOUNDATIONS
CYLINDRICAL FOUNDATIONS
DRILLED PIER
DIRECT EMBEDMENT
VIBRATORY POLE OR CAISSON
HYBRID POLES

DRILLED PIER
Best For
Flexibility in designing
and constructing
foundation
Generally cost
effective for poles
Worst For
Sites with equipment
Access issues
Sites with shallow
hard rock
Sites with deep soft or
loose soil

DIRECT EMBEDMENT
Best For
Generally more cost effective
than drilled piers
Tangent poles
Worst For
Large angle or dead-end poles
Groundline corrosion
Sites with high water table or
unstable soils
Sites with shallow hard rock
Sites with deep soft or loose soil

VIBRATED POLES OR CAISSON
Best For
Sites with granular soils
Sites with high water table
Worst For
Stiff clays, shallow rock
Deep foundations
Groundline corrosion


SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
GRILLAGE OR BASKET
CONCRETE SPREAD FOOTING
CONCRETE MATS
CONCRETE RING
GRILLAGE OR BASKET
Best For
Sites with normal soil
conditions
Low cost using small
common equipment
Worst For
Groundline corrosion
Sites with deep soft
or loose soil
Sites with shallow
hard rock
Structures with heavy
loads

CONCRETE SPREAD FOOTING
Best For
Flexible foundation sizing
Heavy loads supported by soil
Potential to incorporate rock
anchors to improve uplift
capacity.
Worst For
Generally higher costs than
other foundation types
Sites with shallow hard rock

CONCRETE MATS
Best For
Soft, loose and varied soil conditions
Uplift resistance provided by foundation weight
Reduced bearing pressure on soil
Shallow water
Preventing differential settlement problems
Worst For
Relatively high cost
Normal soil conditions


GROUP ACTION FOUNDATIONS
PILE GROUP
MICROPOLE GROUP
HELICAL PULLDOWN MICROPILE GROUP
ROCK ANCHOR GROUP
PILE GROUPS
Best For
Sites with expected
construction difficulties
associated with water
and side wall caving
Granular soil with
increasing density with
depth
Battered piles to
improve lateral capacity
Worst For
Limited uplift capacity
in stiff clays
Relatively high cost

MICROPILE GROUPS
Best For
Sites with thick layer of
soft or loose soil over
rock or dense soil.
May be cost effective
over drilled piers if rock
excavation is difficult
Battered piles to
improve lateral capacity
Worst For
Where drilled piers are
cost effective
Relatively high cost

HELICAL PULLDOWN MICROPILE GROUP
Best For
Granular soils below the water table.
Use cased helical micropile where
difficulty in maintaining an open hole
is anticipated.
Battered piles to improve lateral
capacity.
Potential for significant cost savings
over drilled piers at difficult sites.
Worst For
Where drilled piers are cost effective

PILE GROUP HELICAL PULLDOWN MICROPILE
Ref: AB Chance
ROCK ANCHOR GROUPS
Best For
Shallow hard rock
May be cost
effective over
drilled piers if rock
excavation is
difficult
Worst For
Deep rock
Where drilled piers
are cost effective

ANCHOR TYPE FOUNDATIONS
HELICAL ANCHORS
DEAD-MAN ANCHORS
EXPANDING ANCHORS
ROCK ANCHORS
MALONE FOUNDATION
HELICAL ANCHOR FOUNDATION
ROCK EMBEDDMENT OF TOWER STUB ANGLE

HELICAL ANCHORS
Best For
Normal Soil
Flexible depth and helix
configurations.
Worst For
Boulders & cobbles
Deep soft soils
Shallow rock

DEAD-MAN ANCHORS
Best For
Anchor capacity in poor soil
Improved anchor capacity in
normal soils
Flexible design
Worst For
Relative high cost compared
with helix anchors

EXPANDING ANCHORS
Best For
Normal Soil
Flexible depth and expanding
anchors.
Sites with cobbles
Poor access sites - jackhammer
installation
Worst For
Shallow rock

ROCK ANCHORS
Best For
Shallow rock
Worst For
Unstable overlying soils
Deep rock

MALONE FOUNDATION
Design and construction similar to
Franki foundation
Best For
Sites with loose to medium dense
granular improves soil
Potential for significant cost
savings
Worst For
Non-standard construction
Difficult QC
Sites with stiff clays or shallow
rock
HELICAL ANCHOR FOUNDATION
Best For
Towers with stub angles
Granular soils below the water
table
Sites with expected construction
difficulties associated with water
and side wall caving
Potential for significant cost
savings over drilled piers
Worst For
Shallow rock
Sites with cobbles
Ref: AB Chance
ROCK EMBEDMENT OF STUB ANGLE
Best For
Shallow rock
Towers with stub angles
Low cost
Worst For
Deep rock
Limited flexibility in
foundation depth


Case Study 1
ELECTRICAL CRITERIA AND EFFECTS
345kV Single Circuit Line
EMF controls structure height , conductor configuration and
phasing
TOPOGRAPHY/GEOGRAPHY
Mountainous
SITING/ROW LIMITATIONS
250 ROW shared with existing 345kV tower line
ENVIRONMENTAL
Wetland avoidance, Endangered Species
GEOLOGY
Shallow Igneous Rocks or Soft Alluvial Deposits over rock

Case Study 2
ELECTRICAL CRITERIA AND EFFECTS
230kV single circuit replacing 138kV double circuit on towers
TOPOGRAPHY/GEOGRAPHY
Flat
SITING/ROW LIMITATIONS
Access limited to only the existing access road (10 except at
structures)
ENVIRONMENTAL
Extreme limits on disturbance and time of construction
GEOLOGY
High Value Wetlands, 4 organics overlying 30 of loose to
medium dense sand over 100 dense sand

SUMMARY
STRUCTURE AND FOUNDATION SELECTIONS
SHOULD BE MADE TOGETHER.
FOUNDATIONS COST A LOT - 40% TO 100% OF
STRUCTURE COST
CONSIDER OTHER INFLUENCES IN
STRUCTURE/FOUNDATION SELECTION PROCESS
Soft unstable soils and hard rock usually cause
the greatest problems if the wrong foundation is
chosen