Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

FEATURE ARTICLE

Standardizing
Foundation Design
for Electric
Transmission
Structures

SPECIAL
ISSUE: INFRASTRUCTURE Transmission line in protected wetland

Unlike the commercial building and focused on improvements in design half of design professionals quantitatively
transportation industries, the electric models, site characterization, exploration assess risk in their design process.
transmission industry does not have a strategies, and testing to reduce uncertainty
unified code that explicitly covers design and variance in analysis. Transmission line State of the Practice
and construction of the various foundation engineers realized that safety and reliability Recent industry surveys performed by EPRI
types used to support electrical structures; advancements in design based on (DiGioia, 2010) and by DFI (Kandaris and
there is no overarching professional group probabilistic approaches, with a focus on Davidow, 2015) attempt to quantify the
that leads this effort. Guideline documents the unique nature of transmission lines, state of the practice in terms of design
developed by other industries describe could better control risk and cost. methodology. These surveys examined the
general design methodology for foundation Some transmission line professionals current design practices of electric
types used in the electric power industry, took advantage of these advancements, transmission and overhead line design
but practices vary significantly from utility particularly where research led to improved engineers working for U.S. engineering
to utility. For this reason, DFI established the software and models. Yet by 1995, after two firms and utilities. Among the broader
Electric Power Systems Foundations Work- decades of extensive research, the industry survey results, the EPRI study found that
ing Group in 2013, and upgraded the work- had made little progress in changing design two-thirds of responders were still using
ing group to technical committee status in habits. Most designers were still charac- traditional deterministic (i.e., safety factor)
2018 after significant growth in member- terizing sites via deterministic methods, approaches for design of transmission line
ship and plans for continual activity. using loads that may or may not relate to a foundations, with safety factors ranging
consistent probability of occurrence, and upwards of 4.0, depending on the structure
Previous Standardization Attempts applying a traditional global factor of safety type, foundation type and design model.
Nearly 40 years ago, the Electric Power approach (Phoon, et al., 1995). The follow- The DFI survey a few years later showed
Research Institute (EPRI) embarked on a ing two decades have seen even greater about 50% of electric transmission
major research effort to optimize reliability developments in software and reliability- foundation professionals using traditional
and economics of electric transmission based analysis methods, but old habits seem methods, and just under 40% using
structure foundation design. Strategies to die hard as recent surveys show less than probabilistic design approaches.

AUTHORS Peter Kandaris, P.E., DiGioia Gray & Associates, and Steve Davidow, P.E., S.E., P.Eng., Quanta Subsurface

DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JULY/AUG 2018 • 73


Probability-based design methods have
enjoyed greater acceptance for deep
foundation design in other industries, such
as for buildings, bridges, and similar public
works where the load and resistance factor
design (LRFD) approach is prescribed in
federal, state and regional design
s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y,
specifications and standards in the electric
power industry do not readily address
foundation engineering for transmission
line structures. Kulhawy and Hirany
(2010) note that transmission lines are
unique in that they are linearized systems
that traverse great distances over
potentially highly-variable conditions. This
is added to the fact that there is no single
controlling authority on loading conditions
or design; there exists no universally
accepted approach for determining
transmission line loading; and there are no
overarching methods to evaluate these
loads as they are transferred to foundations
or foundation service performance
requirements (CIGRE, 2002).

Existing Guide Documents


Some professional societies have authored
guide documents attempting to present a
m o re c o m p re h e n s i v e a p p ro a c h t o
transmission line foundation design. The
Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) and American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) produced a Guide
for Transmission Structure Foundation
Design and Testing in 1985 (reaffirmed in
2007). This general reference identifies
sources of design loads and load
combinations from transmission structures
typically applied to design foundations. It
notes that foundations should be designed Drilled shaft construction for tubular steel pole

to resist maximum designed loads relative


to the structure they support. However, the than the structure to prevent foundation typically being deterministically selected
unique nature of both individual and failure prior to structure loss. Currently, with values ranging from 2 to 6 in (51 to
combined steady-state and transient loads there is not a consistent method to ensure 152 mm), and pier allowable angular
could cause foundation performance uniform load increases for foundations as rotation ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 degrees.
(deflection, settlement, uplift or rotation) opposed to structure capacities. The DFI survey found about half of the
to control foundation design. In addition, As an example, in evaluating industry respondents evaluated pier deflection and
typical practice is to envelope worst case inconsistency in design inputs, both rotation using factored loads, another one-
foundation loading components – shear, surveys queried designers on the use and quarter evaluated these performance
axial and overturning moment – across all limits on laterally loaded foundation parameters at service loads, and the
loading combinations into a worst-case performance parameters (i.e., deflection remainder either did not know the load
foundation loading condition. In practice, and rotation) for reinforced concrete drilled source or used other load criteria. When
most utilities deterministically require that shaft design. Both surveys found that the asked to describe the process for
loads applied to foundations be greater allowable deflection at the top of shaft as determining performance parameter limits,

74 • DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JULY/AUG 2018


answers varied widely, with designers using aspects of design, including subsurface Load-Deformation Response
in-house standards, looking at past investigations, foundation design process The goal of the engineer is to design a
performance of foundations, obtaining and design of foundations for all types of foundation that performs as expected under
values from published literature or transmission line structures. In response, the anticipated range of applied loads. At a
obtaining recommendations from local EPRI produced a transmission structure conceptual level, the mechanics of materials
geotechnical consultants. foundation design guide in 2012 with dictates a relationship between stress and
Kalaga and Yenumula (2016) point out suggested standard design processes for strain as a function of soil-structure
the importance of understanding the monopoles, H-Frame and lattice tower interaction. The nonlinear nature of the
effects of angular rotation at ground level foundations within the framework of a load-deformation response for typical
on transmission line structure Reliability-Based Design (RBD) format transmission line foundation types is well
performance. Even small angular rotations (EPRI, 2012). documented from full scale testing,
can induce large displacement at the top of laboratory scale tests, and most foundation
these tall transmission structures, leading Improving Design Methodology design models in both axial and lateral load
to possible reductions in horizontal or It is clear that there is little consistency in modes (Davidson, 1982; Kulhawy et al.,
vertical conductor clearances, poor the approach to transmission foundation 1983; DiGioia and Rojas-Gonzalez, 1994).
aesthetic appearance, and additional design among designers, consultants and The relationship offers an opportunity to
stresses on the pole structure. The authors utilities. Load factors (primarily safety examine various load levels and
note there are no universal standards for factors) and performance factors used by performance at those levels in terms of
deflection or rotation limits on designers vary greatly. Foundation design settlement, deflection or rotation. Using
transmission structure foundations, methodologies are not consistent. Methods either Allowable Stress Design (ASD) or
leaving designers to use their best to integrate structure load factors used for RBD approaches, foundation dimensions
judgment. Complicating the analysis foundation design with reinforced concrete are typically sized to reach some ultimate
further for the average practitioner, recent code factors differ or are not used at all limit of applied resistance capacity. This
parametric studies on the effect of ( K a n d a r i s a n d D a v i d o w, 2 0 1 5 ) . value is well above the factored applied load,
combined pole-foundation deflection Foundation design loads are developed by accounts for variability in soil properties,
found this type of analysis to be difficult, enveloping worst case loading conditions and results in large foundation movements
requiring the use of multiple software that do not occur simultaneously, and as plastic motion has likely been achieved
models (Bowland et al., 2015). strength and serviceability design checks and foundation failure is imminent.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s are not consistently evaluated at separate Alternately, foundation movement at
Rural Development department provides loading levels. The consensus among factored maximum applied loads tends to be
guidance for the design and construction of transmission line design professionals is in the elastic-plastic transition range, while
rural utility services. Their specifications that there is a need to develop a guideline service (unfactored) applied loads are
allow designers the option to specify design document with recommendations expected to be within the elastic range of
foundation rotation either as a maximum for a uniform analysis and design approach foundation movement, where normal
for all load cases or as a certain value for for deep foundations. deformation is mostly recoverable.
each load case. Alternatively, the engineer
can opt to simply specify a fixed base with
no allowable movement at any load value.
The standard does recognize the need for
varying performance parameters, matching
types and probability of loads with
foundation response, and also requires the
designer to include such effects in
calculations as the final deflected pole
stresses but gives no guidance on how to
approach the problem (USDA RDUP, 2016).
With all the confusion, it is not
surprising that many utilities and their
consultants develop internal design
manuals. The DFI survey indicated that
nearly 60% do this in response to the lack of
uniform guidance or to consolidate learned
knowledge. Both the DFI and EPRI survey
results showed current design practices vary
widely, and that these variations apply to all Nonlinear load (resistance) to performance relationship

DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JULY/AUG 2018 • 75


As previously noted, the industry that for every 1 degree of pier rotation, the • NCHRP 489 (Ghosn et al., 2003) –
surveys indicate inconsistency in how top of the pier laterally deflects from 3.5 to Probabilistic method of assessing vari-
transmission line designers select 4% of the pier diameter. able load factors for combined dead,
performance parameters or the load level In other civil design sectors, service traffic, wind, collision and earthquake
associated with those parameters. These limit states are well defined and the loads on bridge structures. Probabilistic
parameters should not be arbitrary but associated working loads are based on foundation scour depth factors are also
should relate to performance at a specified e i t h e r c o d e s o r e x p e r i e n c e . Wi t h given for various extreme event load cases.
load or resistance condition. It is easy to transmission line foundation design, there
• AASHTO LRFD Highway Bridge
understand how improperly applied is no controlling code to follow. Few design
Specifications (AASHTO, 2012) – Prob-
performance parameters could result in models present service load evaluations.
abilistic method of assessing variable
highly-conservative designs if everyday Unfactored transmission line structure
load factors for combined loads from
service limits are assigned at maximum service loads are rarely, if ever, calculated by
components/attachments, traffic and
factored applied loads, or worse, at structure designers or vendors.
other live loads, wind on bridges, water
ultimate resistance capacity.
on piers, ice on piers, collisions and
Most engineers have well-developed Compatible Load Factors
earthquakes.
concepts of deformation for service and Although the utility industry has not
design conditions, as these are in ranges of directly addressed the issues of using a The NCHRP report presents analysis of
movement that would be expected. probabilistic-based method to assess target reliabilities for pier scour, combined
However, when asked to provided combined structure and environmental maximum wind and scour, and combined
performance parameters for models at loads on foundations, guide documents maximum ground motion and scour.
ultimate capacity, most still respond with developed by other agencies and pro-
limits they would desire at those lower load fessional organizations can be used to Moving Forward
values. It is not intuitive to define better understand how these can be There is a demonstrated need to provide a
deformations at failure. incorporated with transmission line unified approach or comprehensive set of
Studies of laterally loaded, short, rigid foundation design. These documents state-of-the-practice guidelines that assess
drilled pier transmission line foundations include load factors that vary depending on risk and account for variability in loads and
tested by EPRI for development of its lateral specified strength, extreme event and soil resistances for the design of electric
load model explored theses load-deflection service load cases. transmission line foundations. The
and load-rotation relationships (Davidson, industry lacks consistent standards for
• ASCE/SEI Standard 7-10 (ASCE, 2010)
1982; Kandaris et al., 2012). The earlier design approach (i.e., allowable strength
– Probabilistic method of assessing
study determined that ultimate shaft and reliability), compatible load and
variable load factors for combined
resistance (capacity) is reasonably defined resistance factors, reliability level, and
dead, live, roof, wind and earthquake
at the point where a pier rotates to an angle performance parameters.
loads on structures.
of about 2 degrees. The latter study found D F I ’s E l e c t r i c P o w e r S y s t e m s
Foundations Committee intends to lay the
groundwork for these future guidelines and
is presently preparing a state-of-the-practice
white paper that summarizes current
industry practices, and evaluates existing
foundation types, electric system codes and
civil engineering standards. Future
foundation design guidelines resulting from
this effort will be prepared by this group to:
• Establish a consistent approach to ASD
and RBD methods for all transmission
line foundation types.
• Determine consistent reliability levels
for load and resistance probability
distributions.
• Incorporate resistance factors consis-
tent with RBD methods using a target
reliability index consistent with the risk
associated with this type of facility.
Relationship of load and resistance probability to performance criteria

76 • DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JULY/AUG 2018


• Develop standards for foundation
QA/QC programs consistent with
various foundation construction
techniques and field testing programs.
Dictating a single set of guidelines or
methodologies is challenging due to the
diversity in design approaches, load cases,
environmental conditions and design
philosophies utilized by various utilities.
Thus, recommendations of future guide-
lines must present best practices and sound
reasoning that can be adapted to the vari-
able nature of the electric power industry.

Helical pile foundation installation


Peter Kandaris, P.E., is co-chair of the DFI Electric
• Emphasize the importance of following • Provide recommendations for compat- Power Systems Foundations Committee and a
a consistent design process, as detailed ible probabilistic load factors and load senior consultant at DiGioia Gray & Associates. He
in IEEE-691, using probabilistic cases for evaluation of transmission has more than 35 years of experience in the
methods to better select geotechnical foundations subject to nonstructural investigation, design and construction of deep
foundation systems for electric power projects.
investigation sites and determine environmental events, such as flowing
geotechnical design parameters. water and ground motion. More re-
Steve Davidow, P.E., S.E., P.Eng., is co-chair of the
search is needed to assess the probability DFI Electric Power Systems Foundations Committee
• Address uniform ultimate and service
of simultaneous occurrence of multiple and senior vice president of engineering at Quanta
limit states that are consistent with
extreme load events. Approaches used Subsurface. He oversees all electric transmission
nonlinear load-deformation responses
by the highway transportation industry foundation design.
observed with transmission line
provide a useful framework for estab-
structure foundations.
lishing compatible load factors.

DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JULY/AUG 2018 • 77

Вам также может понравиться