IEEE Std 691-2001

IEEE Standards
691 TM

IEEE Guide for Transmission

Structure Foundation Design
and Testing

IEEE Power Engineering Society

Sponsored by the
Transmission and Distribution Committee

and the

American Society of Civil Engineers

Sponsored by the
Transmission Structure Foundation Design Standard Committee

Published by
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5997, USA
Print: SH94786
26 December 2001 PDF: SS94786
 IEEE Std 691-2001

IEEE Guide for Transmission

Structure Foundation Design
and Testing

Sponsor
Transmission and Distribution Committee
of the
IEEE Power Engineering Society
and
Transmission Structure Foundation Design Standard Committee
of the
American Society of Civil Engineers

Approved 6 December 2000

IEEE-SA Standards Board

Abstract: The design of foundations for conventional transmission line structures, which include
lattice towers, single or multiple shaft poles, H-frame structures, and anchors for guyed structures
is presented in this guide.
Keywords: anchor, foundation, guyed structure, H-frame structure, lattice tower, multiple shaft
pole, single shaft pole, transmission line structure

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5997, USA

Copyright © 2001 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

All rights reserved. Published 27 April 2001. Printed in the United States of America.

Print: ISBN 0-7381-1807-9 SH94786

PDF: ISBN 0-7381-1808-7 SS94786

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
IEEE Standards documents are developed within the IEEE Societies and the Standards Coordinating Committees of the
IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) Standards Board. The IEEE develops its standards through a consensus develop-
ment process, approved by the American National Standards Institute, which brings together volunteers representing varied
viewpoints and interests to achieve the final product. Volunteers are not necessarily members of the Institute and serve
without compensation. While the IEEE administers the process and establishes rules to promote fairness in the consensus
development process, the IEEE does not independently evaluate, test, or verify the accuracy of any of the information con-
tained in its standards.

Use of an IEEE Standard is wholly voluntary. The IEEE disclaims liability for any personal injury, property or other dam-
age, of any nature whatsoever, whether special, indirect, consequential, or compensatory, directly or indirectly resulting
from the publication, use of, or reliance upon this, or any other IEEE Standard document.

The IEEE does not warrant or represent the accuracy or content of the material contained herein, and expressly disclaims
any express or implied warranty, including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a specific purpose, or that
the use of the material contained herein is free from patent infringement. IEEE Standards documents are supplied “AS IS.”

The existence of an IEEE Standard does not imply that there are no other ways to produce, test, measure, purchase, market,
or provide other goods and services related to the scope of the IEEE Standard. Furthermore, the viewpoint expressed at the
time a standard is approved and issued is subject to change brought about through developments in the state of the art and
comments received from users of the standard. Every IEEE Standard is subjected to review at least every five years for revi-
sion or reaffirmation. When a document is more than five years old and has not been reaffirmed, it is reasonable to conclude
that its contents, although still of some value, do not wholly reflect the present state of the art. Users are cautioned to check
to determine that they have the latest edition of any IEEE Standard.

In publishing and making this document available, the IEEE is not suggesting or rendering professional or other services
for, or on behalf of, any person or entity. Nor is the IEEE undertaking to perform any duty owed by any other person or
entity to another. Any person utilizing this, and any other IEEE Standards document, should rely upon the advice of a com-
petent professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances.

Interpretations: Occasionally questions may arise regarding the meaning of portions of standards as they relate to specific
applications. When the need for interpretations is brought to the attention of IEEE, the Institute will initiate action to prepare
appropriate responses. Since IEEE Standards represent a consensus of concerned interests, it is important to ensure that any
interpretation has also received the concurrence of a balance of interests. For this reason, IEEE and the members of its soci-
eties and Standards Coordinating Committees are not able to provide an instant response to interpretation requests except in
those cases where the matter has previously received formal consideration.

Comments for revision of IEEE Standards are welcome from any interested party, regardless of membership affiliation with
IEEE. Suggestions for changes in documents should be in the form of a proposed change of text, together with appropriate
supporting comments. Comments on standards and requests for interpretations should be addressed to:

Secretary, IEEE-SA Standards Board

445 Hoes Lane
P.O. Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
USA

Note: Attention is called to the possibility that implementation of this standard may require use of subject mat-
ter covered by patent rights. By publication of this standard, no position is taken with respect to the existence or
validity of any patent rights in connection therewith. The IEEE shall not be responsible for identifying patents
for which a license may be required by an IEEE standard or for conducting inquiries into the legal validity or
scope of those patents that are brought to its attention.

IEEE is the sole entity that may authorize the use of certification marks, trademarks, or other designations to indicate com-
pliance with the materials set forth herein.

Authorization to photocopy portions of any individual standard for internal or personal use is granted by the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., provided that the appropriate fee is paid to Copyright Clearance Center. To
arrange for payment of licensing fee, please contact Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Danvers, MA 01923 USA; (978) 750-8400. Permission to photocopy portions of any individual standard for educational
classroom use can also be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center.
Introduction

(This introduction is not part of IEEE Std 691-2001, IEEE Guide for Transmission Structure Foundation Design and
Testing.)

This design guide is intended for the use of the practicing professional engineer engaged in the design of
foundations for electrical transmission line structures. This guide is not to be used as a substitute for profes-
sional engineering competency, nor is it to be considered as a rigid set of rules. Of all building materials, soil
is the least uniform and most unpredictable; therefore, the methods described in this guide may not be the
only methods of design and analysis, nor may they be appropriate in all situations. Design and analysis must
be based upon sound engineering principles and relevant experience.

This design guide is the result of a major effort to consolidate the results of published reports and data, ongo-
ing research, and experience into a single document. It is also an outgrowth of the previously published
efforts of a joint committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers, which combined the knowledge, expertise, and experience of both organizations in the
field of transmission line structure foundation design. Electrical transmission line structures are unique
when compared with other structures, primarily in that no human occupancy is involved and the loading
requirements are different from other structure types. The primary loading of most conventional structures
or buildings is a dead load or sustained live load and lateral wind forces or seismic loads. The primary load-
ing of a transmission line structure is caused by meteorological loads, such as wind and ice, or combinations
thereof [B68].1 Under normal weather or operating conditions, the loads may be only a fraction of the
ultimate capacity of tangent structures, but the application of the design load is short term and sometimes
violent as nature unleashes its fury. In addition, a finite probability exists that the design load could be
exceeded.

Foundations for transmission line structures are called on to resist loading conditions consisting of various
combinations. Lattice tower foundations typically experience uplift or compression and horizontal shear
loads. H-frame structures experience combinations of uplift or compression and horizontal shear and
moment loads. Single pole structures experience horizontal shear loads and large overturning moments.
Foundations for transmission structures must satisfy the same fundamental design criteria as those for any
other type of structure—adequate strength and stability, tolerable deformation, and cost-effectiveness. In
addition, transmission line structures may be constructed hundreds or thousands of times in a multitude of
subsurface conditions encountered along the same route. Therefore, optimization and standardization for
cost-effectiveness is highly desirable.

This design guide addresses fundamental performance criteria and the design methods associated with trans-
mission line structure modes of loading, much of which is not found in geotechnical engineering textbooks.

Many alternative approaches can be used for the geotechnical design of foundations for transmission line
structures. It is the intent of this design guide to provide several approaches to the design of various founda-
tion types that are consistent with the present state of geotechnical engineering practice. Where several
methods are presented for the design of a particular type of foundation, the design engineer should exercise
sound engineering judgment in determining which method is most representative of the situation.

1The numbers in brackets correspond to those of the bibliography in Annex A.

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. iii

Participants

At the time this guide was completed, the Foundation Design Standard Task Group of the Line Design
Methods Working Group; Towers, Poles, and Conductors Subcommittee; and Transmission and Distribu-
tion Committee had the following membership:

Anthony M. DiGioia, Jr., IEEE Co-Chair

Fred Dewey Jake Kramer Bob Peters
Yen Huang Pete Taylor

At the time this guide was completed, the Transmission Structure Foundation Design Standards Committee
of the ASCE had the following membership:

Paul A. Tedesco, ASCE Co-Chair

Wesley W. Allen, Jr. Adel M. Hanna Marlyn G. Schepers
David R. Bowman Thomas O. Keller Wayne C. Teng
Kin Y. C. Chung Fred H. Kulhawy Charles H. Trautmann
Samuel P. Clemence S. Bruce Langness Dale E. Welch
Dennis J. Fallon Robert C. Latham Robert M. White
Safdar A. Gill Edwin B. Lawless III Harry S. Wu
Donald D. Oglesby

When the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved this standard on 6 December 2000, it had the following
membership:
Donald N. Heirman, Chair
James T. Carlo, Vice Chair
Judith Gorman, Secretary

Satish K. Aggarwal James H. Gurney James W. Moore

Mark D. Bowman Richard J. Holleman Robert F. Munzner
Gary R. Engmann Lowell G. Johnson Ronald C. Petersen
Harold E. Epstein Robert J. Kennelly Gerald H. Peterson
H. Landis Floyd Joseph L. Koepfinger* John B. Posey
Jay Forster* Peter H. Lips Gary S. Robinson
Howard M. Frazier L. Bruce McClung Akio Tojo
Ruben D. Garzon Daleep C. Mohla Donald W. Zipse

*Member Emeritus

Also included is the following nonvoting IEEE-SA Standards Board liaison:

Alan Cookson, NIST Representative

Donald R. Volzka, TAB Representative

Andrew D. Ickowicz
IEEE Standards Project Editor

iv Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Contents
1. Overview.............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Scope............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 System design considerations ...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Other considerations .................................................................................................................... 2

2. Loading and performance criteria........................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Loading ........................................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Foundation performance criteria and structure types................................................................... 5

3. Subsurface investigation and selection of geotechnical design parameters....................................... 10

3.1 General....................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Phases of investigation............................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Types of boring samples ............................................................................................................ 13
3.4 Soil and rock classification ........................................................................................................ 15
3.5 Engineering properties ............................................................................................................... 18

4. Design of spread foundations............................................................................................................. 23

4.1 Structural applications ............................................................................................................... 23

4.2 Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 31
4.3 Traditional design methods........................................................................................................ 66
4.4 Construction considerations....................................................................................................... 73
4.5 General foundation considerations ............................................................................................ 74

5. Design of drilled shaft and direct embedment foundations ............................................................... 77

5.1 Types of foundations.................................................................................................................. 77

5.2 Structural applications ............................................................................................................... 79
5.3 Drilled concrete shaft foundations ............................................................................................. 80
5.4 Direct embedment foundations ................................................................................................ 110
5.5 Precast-prestressed, hollow concrete shafts and steel casings ................................................. 113
5.6 Design and construction considerations................................................................................... 113

6. Design of pile foundations ............................................................................................................... 115

6.1 Pile types and orientation......................................................................................................... 116

6.2 Pile stresses .............................................................................................................................. 121
6.3 Pile capacity ............................................................................................................................. 122
6.4 Pile deterioration...................................................................................................................... 137
6.5 Construction considerations..................................................................................................... 139

7. Design of anchors ............................................................................................................................ 139

7.1 Anchor types ............................................................................................................................ 139

7.2 Anchor application................................................................................................................... 142
7.3 Design analysis ........................................................................................................................ 144
7.4 Group effect ............................................................................................................................. 163
7.5 Grouts....................................................................................................................................... 163

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. v

 7.6 Construction considerations..................................................................................................... 164

8. Load tests ......................................................................................................................................... 167

8.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 167

8.2 Instrumentation ........................................................................................................................ 169
8.3 Scope of test program .............................................................................................................. 170

Annex A (informative) Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 177

vi Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

IEEE Guide for Transmission
Structure Foundation Design
and Testing

1. Overview

1.1 Scope

The material presented in this design guide pertains to the design of foundations for conventional transmis-
sion line structures, which include lattice towers, single or multiple shaft poles, H-frame structures, and
anchors for guyed structures. It discusses the mode of loads that those structures impose on their foundations
and applicable foundation performance criteria. The design guide addresses subsurface investigations and
the design of foundations, such as spread foundations (footings), drilled shafts, direct embedded poles,
driven piles, and anchors. The full-scale load testing of the above-listed foundation types is also presented.

This design guide does not include the structural design of the foundations nor the design of the structure.
Citations [B5]1 and [B50] provide guidance for the design of lattice towers and tubular steel poles, respec-
tively. The foundation engineer should have an understanding of the magnitudes and time-history of various
loading conditions imposed on the foundations in order to provide a suitable foundation to support the trans-
mission line structures under the actual loading conditions that may be reasonably expected in actual
service.

1.2 System design considerations

A transmission line is a system of interconnected elements, each individually designed. The overall line
must integrate all of these individual design elements into a coordinated structural system.

Every decision made for the system should consider total installed cost, of which foundations are a major
consideration. For example, wire tensions are sometimes increased to minimize the number and/or height of
the supporting structures. However, if a significant number of angles is in the line, total installed costs may
be higher because of increased angle structure and foundation costs. Similarly, when developing structure
configurations, a wider base structure could be considered to reduce foundation loads and thereby decrease
the foundation cost. This must be evaluated against the added cost of widening the structure.

1The numbers in brackets correspond to those of the bibliography in Annex A.

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 1

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

When designing a transmission line, the engineer has the option to design each foundation for site-specific
loadings and subsurface conditions or to develop standard designs that can be used at predetermined similar
sites. The preferred approach is one that will minimize the total installed cost of the line, and it may also
involve a combination of site-specific and standard foundation designs.

A custom design at each site has the advantage of avoiding costly overdesign. However, this approach will
require a more extensive subsurface investigation in advance of the design and involve added engineering
investment to prepare the many individual designs required. A custom foundation design may be justified at
angle structures, or at lightly loaded structures that will not develop the full capacity of a standard structure.

Foundations may be standardized by limiting the number to only one or two designs for each standard struc-
ture type, considering each to cover a preselected range of subsurface conditions and foundation loads. The
extent of subsurface investigations can be reduced to a level necessary to identify the general subsurface
conditions along the line. This approach enables the engineer to select an appropriate standard foundation.
Verification of subsurface conditions at each structure site should be made during construction excavation.
This approach allows for greater efficiencies in fabrication and assembly of foundation types, such as steel
grillages. Using standard foundation designs will result in utilizing foundations having greater load-carrying
capacity at some structure locations. Construction excavation may reveal locations that require site-specific
foundations because the actual subsurface conditions are outside the limits of the preselected range. The
benefits of standardization should be weighted against the cost of site-specific foundation designs and
against the additional cost of redesigning the foundation when unusual subsurface conditions are encoun-
tered during construction.

The amount and extent of standardization will vary with each foundation type. Steel grillages that are
entirely shop fabricated are almost always designed to cover the maximum loads for a given tower type and
the majority of subsurface conditions expected along the line. An advantage of the grillage-type foundation
is that concrete is not required at the site with the attendant transporting and curing requirements. In addi-
tion, grillages may be shipped to the site with the rest of the tower steel. A drilled shaft foundation can be
varied to suit the actual soil conditions by providing different depths and/or diameters. Usually, the only
change to prefabricated materials, required to modify drilled shaft foundations, is the length or quantity of
steel reinforcing bars, and this can usually be readily accomplished at a small additional cost. Likewise,
many types of pile foundations can be adapted to actual site conditions by providing standard foundations
with various numbers of driven piles of varying lengths, as required.

1.3 Other considerations

Whereas this design guide is primarily aimed at the design of new foundations, the principles are applicable
to the investigation of the geotechnical capacity of existing foundations for purposes of determining line
capacity or for upgrading or refurbishing the line. If the foundations are upgraded to meet new loading
requirements, care must be taken to assure the structural adequacy of the foundation. The investigation and
design for restoration of a line after natural or man-made disasters must adhere to the same careful principles
of investigation and design as a new line.

Documentation of the design and “as-built” construction data of foundations is vital, particularly if a line is
to be refurbished or upgraded at a later date.

2 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

2. Loading and performance criteria

2.1 Loading

Each utility normally has a unique agenda of loading cases for the design of transmission line systems.
Based on this information, the engineer should analyze the structural system and calculate appropriate com-
binations of axial, shear, and moment loads acting on every foundation for each loading case. For a given
structure type, different load cases may control foundation design depending on line angles and other design
factors.

Foundation design methods must be compatible with the foundation type and loading conditions. Similarly,
the subsurface exploration program must be compatible with these factors to provide the required geotechni-
cal design data.

The foundation designer should consider the following sources for the determination of foundation loads:

a) Legislated Loads
b) ASCE Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading [B68]
c) State-Specific Loading Criteria (e.g., California General Order 95)
d) Utility-Specific Loading Criteria

Legislated loads provide minimum structural loading criteria for the design of transmission lines. An exam-
ple of legislated loads is the National Electric Safety Code (NESC) [B117], which is a legislated code in
many U.S. states.

The American Society of Civil Engineers’ Committee on Electrical Transmission Structures has published a
guide [B68] that provides transmission line designers with procedures for the selection of design loads and
load factors. A load resistance factor design (LRFD) format is presented for the development of attachment
point loads for the design of any transmission structure. The same design loads and load factors apply to
structures made of steel, reinforced concrete, wood, or other materials, as well as to their foundations, with
only the resistance factors differing.

Based on specific service area requirements and experience, many utilities have developed their own struc-
tural loading agenda. The structural loading agenda may include legislated loads, ASCE, and utility-specific
loading criteria.

The foundation design engineer should establish the strength of the foundation relative to the strength of the
structure it supports. A foundation could be designed to be stronger than the structure; thus, in the event the
structure fails, its replacement can be erected on the same foundation. A foundation could be designed to
have the same strength as the structure it supports, thus, developing the full capacity of the structure while
minimizing foundation first-cost expenditures. In some cases, the foundation engineer may find that the
foundation could be designed to carry loads that are less than the capacity of the structure (where a standard
structure is used at less than its design load capacity). In this case, the designer should recognize the proba-
bility of a foundation failure if the structure is ever subjected to a load greater than the load required by the
structure application. An analysis weighing all values and probabilities should be made to determine the
foundation that meets requirements and provides economy.

It is generally recommended that loading cases be separated into steady-state, transient, construction, and
maintenance loads. These loading cases are considered separately in the following discussion.

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 3

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

2.1.1 Steady-state loads

Steady-state loads are those loads imposed on a structure for a long or continuous time period. Examples of
these types of loads are

— Vertical loads due to the dead weight of the structure, bare weight of conductors and shield wires,
insulators, and any hardware, such as suspension clamps and dampers
— Loads due to horizontal or vertical angles in the line
— Differential line tension
— Termination of the line (dead ends)

2.1.2 Transient loads

Transient loads are those loads imposed on a structure for a short time duration. Examples of these types of
loads are

— Wind loads on bare or ice-covered conductors, shield wires, structure, insulators, and hardware
— Extreme event loads (including broken wire, hardware failure, loss of structure, etc.)
— Stringing loads due to conductor hanging-up in the stringing block during wire installation, where no
work crews are endangered
— Ice loads (including ice shedding and galloping)

2.1.3 Construction loads

Construction loads are those loads imposed during the erection of the structure and wire installation. Exam-
ples of these types of loads are

— Horizontal shear loads on a foundation used in tilt-up construction of the structure

— Temporary terminal loads that occur during wire installation
— Wire installation load where work crews are endangered

It is anticipated that construction loads will have a higher load factor than transient loads. Thus, wire instal-
lation loads, which endanger work crews, are grouped under construction loads, whereas wire installation
loads, which do not endanger work crews, are grouped under transient loads.

2.1.4 Maintenance loads

Maintenance loads are those loads that are a result of line maintenance activities (insulator replacement,
etc.).

2.1.5 Design loads

The design loads are the combination of loading conditions used to design the foundations. The time dura-
tion that a load is applied to a foundation may often be taken advantage of to reduce foundation costs. An
example of this is a foundation in a cohesive soil that can resist design loads for a short duration of time
without experiencing significant movements; but when the design loads are applied over the service life of
the structure, they will result in excessive displacements. In this situation, the foundation should be designed
to resist the maximum combined loading condition; however, displacement could be based on steady-state
loads only.

4 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

In summation, a foundation should be designed to resist the maximum combined design loads acting on it.
On the other hand, displacements could be estimated using steady-state loads in the case of foundations
constructed in cohesive soils or using the maximum combined design loads in the case of granular soils.
Design loads may be steady-state, transient, construction, and maintenance loads. Variations in subsurface
conditions from one structure location to another, subsurface variations between foundations of the same
structure, uncertainties of the foundation analysis, and foundation construction procedures are additional
factors that must be considered in each individual foundation design.

2.2 Foundation performance criteria and structure types

The establishment of performance criteria for the design of safe and economical foundations is essential. In
establishing performance criteria, the definition of foundation failure and damage limits should be
thoroughly understood by the foundation designer and the structure designer. Foundation failure limit
performance criteria are the failure capacity of the foundation and/or the magnitude of displacement (differ-
ential and total) at which failure of the structure is imminent. The damage limit performance criteria are the
load capacity of the foundation or the displacement (differential and total) that would damage but not fail the
structure. Differential settlements may result in foundation elevation differences that cause warping of the
structure, inducing unanticipated loads in the structural members and creating difficulties in tower erection.
Unfortunately, little work has been done to quantify the levels of failure and damage limit displacements for
lattice and H-frame type structures. However, it is known that the amount of allowable total and differential
displacement is dependent on the type of structure.

2.2.1 Lattice towers

Lattice tower foundation loads consist of vertical forces (uplift or compression) combined with horizontal
shear forces. For tangent and small line angle towers, the vertical loads on a foundation may be either uplift
or compression. For terminal and large line angle towers, the foundations on one side may always be loaded
in uplift while the foundations on the other side may always be loaded in compression. The distribution of
horizontal forces between the foundations of a lattice tower vary with the bracing and geometry of the
structure. Care should be taken to include the transverse and the longitudinal load components of all tower
members connected to the foundations. A free-body diagram for lattice tower foundation loads is shown in
Figure 1.

Figure 1—Typical loads acting on lattice tower foundations

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 5

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

When the foundations of a tower displace and the geometric relationship of the four tower foundations
remains the same, any increase in load due to this displacement will have a minimal effect on the tower and
its foundations. However, foundation movements that change the geometric relationship between the tower’s
four foundations will redistribute the loads in the tower members and foundations. This will usually cause
greater reactions on the foundation that moves less relative to the other tower foundations, which in turn will
tend to equalize this differential displacement.

At the present time, the effects of differential foundation movements are normally not included in tower
design. Several options are available should the engineer decide to consider differential foundation displace-
ments in the tower design. These options include designing the foundations to satisfy performance criteria
that will not cause significant secondary loads on the tower, or designing the tower to withstand specified
differential foundation movements.

2.2.2 Single pole structures

Single pole structures can be made of tubular steel, wood, or concrete. These structures have one foundation
so that differential foundation movement is precluded. The foundation reactions consist of a large overturn-
ing moment and usually relatively small horizontal, vertical, and torsional loads. A free-body diagram for a
free-standing single shaft structure is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2—Typical loads acting on foundations for single shaft structures

For single shaft structures, the foundation movement of concern is the angular rotation and horizontal dis-
placement of the top of the foundation. When these displacements and rotations have been determined and
combined with the deflections of the structure, the resultant displacement of the conductor support can be
computed. Under high wind loading, a corresponding deflection of the conductors perpendicular to the trans-
mission line can be permitted if electrical clearances are not violated. Accordingly, under infrequent tempo-
rary loads, larger ground line displacements and rotations of the foundation could also be permitted.

In establishing performance criteria for single-shaft structure foundations, consideration should be given to
how much total, as well as permanent, displacement and rotation can be permitted. In some cases, large per-
manent displacements and rotations might be aesthetically unacceptable and replumbing of the structures
and/or their foundations may be required. In establishing performance criteria, the cost of replumbing should
be compared with the cost of a foundation that is more resistant to displacement and rotation.

6 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

For terminal and large line angle structures, large foundation deflections parallel to the conductor probably
are not tolerable. For these structures, the deflection may excessively reduce the conductor-to-ground clear-
ance or increase the loads on adjacent structures. There are also problems in the stringing and sagging of
conductors if the deflections are excessive. These problems are usually resolved by construction methods or
use of permanent guys.

2.2.3 H-frame structures

The foundation loads for H-frame structures are dependent on the structural configuration and the relative
stiffness of the members. Although foundation reactions for moment-resisting H-frames are statically inde-
terminate, they can be approximated by making assumptions that result in a statically determinate structure.
Also, the statically indeterminate structures can be analyzed using any of the classic long-hand analysis
methods or by using computer programs. Figure 3 shows a free-body diagram of the foundation loads for an
H-frame structure.

Figure 3—Typical loads acting on foundations for H-frame structures

Figure 4—Typical H-frame structures

Many different types of two-legged H-framed structures are in use in transmission lines. This has been par-
ticularly true in recent years because visual impact has become of greater concern.

The H-frame structure is particularly applicable for wood, tubular steel, or concrete poles. The cross arm
may be pin-connected to the poles, in which case an unbraced structure behaves essentially as two single
poles connected by the cross arm. These structures may be unbraced, braced, or internally guyed, as shown
in Figure 4.

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 7

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

As with lattice towers, past practice has not normally included the influence of foundation displacement and
rotation in H-frame structure design. Significant foundation movements will redistribute the frame and foun-
dation loads. The foundations can be designed to experience movements that will not produce significant
secondary stresses in the structure, or the structure can be designed for a predetermined maximum allowable
total and differential displacement and rotation.

2.2.4 Externally guyed structures

Three general types of externally guyed structures exist [B49]. For all types, the guys produce uplift loads on
the guy foundations and compression loads on the structure foundation. The guys are generally adjustable in
length to permit plumbing of the structure during construction and to account for creep in the guy and move-
ment of the uplift anchor.

Several types of externally guyed structures are shown in Figure 5. The guys are located out-of-plane, both
ahead and in back of the structure. In this case, the shaft or shafts of the structures usually have a ball-and-
socket base connection to the foundation to permit free rotation without transmitting moment to the founda-
tion. This will produce compression loading with a small shear load.

Figure 5—Typical externally guyed structures

This type of guyed structure can generally tolerate large foundation movements if guy stability is main-
tained. Consideration in establishing performance criteria are similar to those discussed in 2.2.2 for single
pole structures.

A single-pole type externally guyed structure is shown in Figure 6. This type of structure is often used as a
terminal and large line angle structure and is quite flexible, allowing most of the load to be resisted by ten-
sion in the guys and compression in the main shaft.

This type of guyed structure can generally tolerate significant foundation movement as far as its structural
integrity is concerned; but like the terminal and large line angle poles discussed in 2.2.2, if excessive guy
anchor slippage occurs, conductor-to-ground clearance, security of adjacent structures, and stringing and
sagging conductors can become problems.

8 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

Figure 6—Single-pole, externally guyed structures

Another type of externally guyed structure is a conventional lattice tower guyed to reduce its leg loads and
foundation reactions. This approach, which has often been used to upgrade existing towers, can lead to prob-
lems, as the relative distribution of the loads between the guys and the tower depend on the guy pretensions
and the potential creep of the foundation. The flexibility of the guy, together with the flexibility of the tower,
are needed to compute the foundation reactions and anchor loads. The maximum amount of anchor slippage
can be selected, and the tower and anchors designed accordingly. The initial and final modulus of elasticity
of the guys, together with the creep of the guys, should be considered. The amount of pretension in the guys
should be specified and guys prestressed. Load testing of the guy anchors is recommended to ensure against
excessive slippage. Figure 7 shows a typical installation.

Figure 7—Externally guyed lattice tower

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 9

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

The guyed-lattice tower leg foundations are required to resist horizontal shear forces and vertical compres-
sion or uplift loads. As in the case of the lattice towers, discussed in 2.2.1, the load distribution in the compo-
nent structural elements is sensitive to the foundation performance. Differential displacements of the legs of
the tower will result in load redistribution and may affect the integrity of the tower.

3. Subsurface investigation and selection of geotechnical design

parameters

3.1 General

Subsurface investigation for electrical transmission tower foundation should be carried out along the right-
of-way (r/w) of the transmission line to obtain geotechnical parameters required to successfully design the
transmission structure foundations at a minimum cost.

As a minimum, the investigation should provide geotechnical parameters required to establish the ultimate
load-bearing capacity of the subsurface material, and to determine the allowable movement of the foundation.

3.2 Phases of investigation

The investigation consists of the following three phases:

— Preliminary investigation to establish feasibilities

— Detailed investigation to finalize designs and details
— Design verification during construction and documentation

3.2.1 Preliminary investigation

The preliminary investigation should consist of collecting existing data relating to local and subsurface
conditions, and of making a geotechnical field reconnaissance of the line route. If considered cost-effective,
preliminary boring, penetration, and pressuremeter tests can be added to verify and increase the confidence
level in existing data and finalize the reconnaissance mapping.

3.2.1.1 Existing data

A considerable amount of data regarding local geology, including distribution of surface water, depth of
groundwater, depth and physical characteristics of bedrock, and type and thickness of soil cover, is available
from several sources.

Topographic maps and aerial photographs, available from the various U.S. Geological Survey offices and
commercial aerial surveying firms, typically provide data on the distribution of surface and ground waters,
soil conditions and rock types, the areas of exposed bedrock, and the geomorphologic landform. They also
show the location of man-made features such as radio towers, quarries, highways, other transmission lines,
and building constructions. Often, due to proximity, useful information along the proposed r/w may be
obtained on the foundation conditions by simple extrapolation of the available data.

Other excellent sources of information on the soil distribution and rock types are state and federal geological
surveys and the geology departments of nearby universities.

The other potential sources of information are the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, and county or regional planning boards.
More information concerning sources of geological data may be found in [B165].

10 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

3.2.1.2 Field reconnaissance

Another useful means of obtaining information during the preliminary investigation is to perform a field
reconnaissance survey of the transmission line route. The reconnaissance should be performed by a geotech-
nical engineer or an engineering geologist. The purpose of the reconnaissance is to develop a map of the
surficial soils showing areas that may offer particular foundation problems such as deep peat or soft organic
silt, bedrock outcrops, areas of high groundwater table, and areas of potential slope instability. The soil and
rock classifications used in the mapping should be based on engineering properties, not on geological or
agricultural distinctions. By comparing the information from the field reconnaissance and existing published
information, a preliminary line route map showing basic soil or rock types, inferred depth to bedrock, and
elevation of the groundwater table can be developed.

3.2.1.3 Preliminary borings

The development of a surficial map with adequate subsurface interpretation usually is the final step in the
preliminary investigation. To achieve such objective, it may be cost-effective to obtain a few preliminary
borings in those areas where subsurface interpretation is difficult and where it may affect the foundation
design significantly.

Preliminary borings are generally used for soil classification purposes only and disturbed samples are thus
satisfactory. The most common methods of obtaining disturbed samples are auger boring and using a heavy
walled split-barrel sampler which is driven into the soil at selected intervals in the boring. Test pits and
probes can also be used.

When the boring has been advanced to the required depth, the sample is taken by driving the split-barrel
sampler into the soil. This Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is covered in ASTM D1586 [B14]. Samples usu-
ally are taken at intervals of not more than 1.5 m (5 ft) in depth, and at every change in stratification where
such change can be detected by the driller. Closer sampling intervals may be necessary if the soil stratifica-
tion is complex or thinly stratified. When the scope of the investigation requires that borings be made, it is
important to have a knowledgeable person with experience in geotechnical engineering present to ensure
correct interpretation of the data obtained from the boring program. Dutch cone tests [B16] or pressuremeter
tests [B19] may be used in lieu of the standard penetration tests to determine the in-situ stress, deformability
and strength.

Since ground water affects many elements of foundation design and construction, its location should be
established as accurately as possible. It is generally determined by measuring to the water level in the bore-
hole after a suitable time lapse. A period of 24 hr is a typical time interval. However, in clays and other soils
of low permeability, it may require several days to weeks to determine a meaningful water level. Standpipes
or other perforated casings may be used to prevent the borehole from caving during this period.

3.2.2 Design investigation

The purpose of the design investigation is to provide the foundation engineer with sufficient subsurface
information to

— Select the types of foundation most suitable at each structure location

— Determine the size and depth of the selected foundations to adequately support the power transmis-
sion along the line
— Evaluate potential problems during construction

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 11

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

The information required to achieve these goals includes:

— Type of structure and allowable foundation movements

— Magnitude and duration of structure loadings at the ground line
— Stratigraphy of the subsurface materials
— Elevation of the ground water table
— Engineering properties of the subsurface materials

On any transmission line route these five factors may vary considerably, and the detailed investigation
should provide the required information in a cost-effective manner. Ideally, a detailed subsurface investiga-
tion would involve boring at each structure site. However, this may not be necessary if the results of the pre-
liminary investigation have shown that subsurface conditions in a specific section of the line route are
reasonably uniform.

Indirect methods of subsurface investigation include geophysical exploration techniques such as seismic
refraction, electrical resistivity, and gravimetric surveys. These methods generally are used to survey large
areas. While not well suited to investigate the small area at each structure location, they may be helpful as sup-
plemental data between boring locations. These indirect methods only assist in defining general stratigraphy.

The designer should be aware of the opportunity to save substantial project cost, since there may be a large
number of foundation designs. The saving in cost due to failure to administer adequate subsurface investiga-
tion must be weighed, however, against the cost of the risks involved.

Coincident with selecting the locations for the subsurface investigations, decisions should be made concern-
ing the type and depth of exploration. The type of exploration is mainly a function of soil types expected at a
given site and the type of foundation being considered for the site. For example, if the structure is located
where the expected subsurface material is sand, a boring that obtains disturbed samples and records the stan-
dard penetration test results will usually be adequate. On the other hand, the same foundation type located in
clay may require a boring that will allow undisturbed samples to be obtained.

Guidance for determining the most satisfactory boring may be obtained from considering the following
question: Can the foundation be designed in a cost effective manner from empirical correlations between
classification tests and engineering properties of the soil or rock? If so, then boring to obtain disturbed sam-
ples with standard or Dutch cone penetration test will be sufficient.

If a cost effective design can be determined only by accurate knowledge of the engineering properties, then
undisturbed sample borings must be made, and laboratory or in situ tests conducted to determine the
required engineering properties. Empirical relationships between engineering properties and classification
tests performed on disturbed soil samples can be developed for a specific project. On large projects, this cor-
relation can result in a reduction in boring costs by reducing the number of undisturbed sample borings and
engineering property measurements.

The depth of each exploration should extend through any unsuitable or questionable foundation materials,
and to a depth sufficient so that imposed stresses below that depth (due to foundation loads) will not result in
adverse performance for the types of foundations being considered. As a general guide, unless bedrock is
encountered first, explorations should be made to a depth at which the net increase in soil stress from the
maximum design load is 10% of the in situ vertical effective stress in the soil at the depth. For spread foun-
dations, this translates into depths which are 2.0 to 2.5 times the equivalent diameter of the foundation. The
net increase in stress may be computed from the Boussinesq and Mindlin equations [B113]. Poulos [B129]
and Westergaard provided various stress distribution charts. Further discussion regarding the depth of the
subsurface investigation may be found in [B146] and [B151].

12 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

3.2.3 Construction verification

The owner should have representation in the field during foundation construction to determine if the actual
subsurface conditions are similar to those conditions used in the foundation design. If the subsurface condi-
tions used in the foundation design differ significantly from the actual conditions, it may be necessary to
enlarge the foundation or change the foundation type.

3.3 Types of boring samples

The purpose of making a boring is to obtain samples of the subsurface materials for visual description, clas-
sification, and testing to determine design parameters. Each sample should be visually examined preferrably
in the field by a geotechnical engineer or an engineering geologist and the appropriate manual tests per-
formed to allow the soil to be classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System [B37]. ASTM
D2488 [B15] may be used for routine field classification.

In making borings, the hole is advanced by drilling with a bit to cut away the soil and circulating drilling
fluid through the bit to carry away the cuttings, or the hole is advanced by an auger. Augers, either conven-
tional or hollow-stem type, should be used with caution when sampling below the groundwater table.
Upward seepage of water in pervious soils (or even in many silts) may disturb and loosen the soil to such an
extent that penetration tests will indicate erroneously low blow-counts and increase the moisture contents of
the soil. It is essential that at all times the water level in the borehole be kept above the groundwater table. In
granular soils, even above the water table, loading of the soil by the blades of a hollow stem auger may cause
higher blow counts in the penetration test than would be measured in other types of boring.

Three kinds of samples can be taken by boring operations: disturbed soil, undisturbed soil, and rock core.
The foundation designer should be familiar with the detailed means of subsurface exploration and sampling
methods described in [B80].

3.3.1 Disturbed soil samples

Thick-walled samplers may be used for obtaining samples suitable for identification and index property
tests. The barrels of such samplers may be solid tubes of the split-barrel type that facilitates removal and
examination of samples. Samplers of this type range in diameter from 5 cm to 11 cm (2 in to 4.5 in). They
may be used to recover samples in many soils, although there may be difficulties with coarse gravel or rock
fragments unless the sampler is equipped with a flap valve or basket retainer. The equipment and procedures
for making Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), determining the standard penetration resistance (N), and
obtaining split-barrel samples are covered in ASTM D1586 [B14].

The SPT resistance should not be used for estimating the strength and compressibility of cohesive soils
(clays). The strength and compressibility of cohesive soils are greatly influenced by their soil structure (par-
ticle arrangement) which is a function of mode of deposition, mineralogy, and stress history. Since first
described by Casagrande [B36], the importance of the structure of clay has been well documented. The vast
majority of clays are sensitive, since their strength is reduced and their compressibility increased when their
structure is disturbed. The act of driving a thick-walled sampler, used to measure the SPT resistance, disturbs
the clay sufficiently so that this technique is unsuitable for estimating the engineering properties of clays.

The strength and compressibility of cohesionless soils (sands and gravel) usually are not greatly influenced
by soil structure, and these soils typically are insensitive. Their strength and compressibility are mainly a
function of grain size and density (degree of compactness). Therefore, the SPT resistance can be used to esti-
mate the adequacy of cohesionless soils for supporting the loading associated with transmission tower foun-
dations. In addition to their insensitivity, a second important reason for the applicability of the SPT to
cohesionless soils is that these soils are relatively incompressible and have high shear strength; except in
unusual cases, the loads imposed by transmission structure foundations will not cause large deformations.

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 13

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

Having stated that the SPT is a useful classification test for cohesionless soils, it is necessary to point out one
important exception. The designer must be aware of the special case of cohesionless silts (they do not have
dry strength). Because of their small particle size, the behavior of silts is influenced by particle arrangement
or structure. The strength and compressibility of silts cannot be evaluated from standard penetration tests.
Silts should be treated similarly to clays and undisturbed samples should be obtained to permit measurement
of strength and compressibility.

A number of the additional factors affecting the results of the SPT have been discussed in the literature. For
potential errors inherent in this exploration procedure, see [B48], [B99], [B123]. For example, minor
amounts of gravel exceeding 6.35 mm (0.25 in) in size may affect the SPT results. Because of its sensitivity
to gravel, the test is not dependable in coarse-grained soils including medium to course gravel.

Customary practice is to take samples at intervals of approximately 1.5 m (5 ft). With the standard sampler,
about 45.7 cm (18 in) of soil are usually recovered, which results in about 30% of the soil column being
available for examination. This is usually sufficient, although closer spacing of sampling should be used if
soils vary markedly with depth. In soil masses where the individual strata are relatively thin, as is frequently
the case in estuarine or fluvial deposits, intermittent sampling may give quite misleading results. In such
deposits, continuous sampling should be done in a sufficient number of holes to define the stratigraphy more
accurately.

At least 15 cm (6 in) of each sample should be sealed in an airtight container and sent to the soils laboratory
for further classification and testing. Dependence on a driller for field classification of soils is not good prac-
tice, because drillers rarely have the requisite technical training to adequately classify soils.

3.3.2 Undisturbed soil samples

Equipment and procedures for obtaining undisturbed samples of soils of a quality suitable for quantitative
testing of strength and deformation characteristics have been given in [B80]. Briefly, taking undisturbed
samples requires using a thin-walled sampler with proper clearance at the cutting edge. The sampler must be
forced into the soil smoothly and continuously.

To permit taking undisturbed samples in dense soils or soils containing gravel or other hard particles that
tend to deform a conventional thin-walled sampler, samplers such as the Denison or Pitcher have been devel-
oped in which a thin-walled, nonrotating inner sampler barrel is forced into the soil mass, while the soil sur-
rounding the barrel is removed by a rotating, carbide-toothed outer barrel. Good quality samples in difficult
soils can usually be obtained with such equipment.

In most soils of soft to stiff consistency, samples of a quality suitable for quantitative testing can be obtained
using thin-walled Shelby tube samplers a minimum of 5 cm (2 in) diameter, providing there is a proper cut-
ting edge [B80]. Normally, the tube is pushed into the soil for a distance of about 15 cm to 20 cm (6 in to
8 in) less than the length of the tube. Preferably the sampler should be pushed downward in one continuous
movement. After the sampler has been forced down, the drill rods are rotated to shear the end of the sample
and the sample is removed. Friction between the sample and the tube retains the sample as the sampler is
withdrawn. A special valve or piston arrangement also may be attached to create a pressure differential (suc-
tion) to aid in retaining the sample. To reduce deficiencies with respect to sample length and sample distur-
bance due to side friction between the sample and the walls of the sampler (while the sampler is being
advanced into the soil), various piston and foil samplers have also been developed. These are described in
more detail by Hvorslev [B80] and may be used to obtain undisturbed samples in soft soils or soils in which
recovery is difficult using a conventional Shelby tube sampler.

14 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

3.3.3 Rock coring

Where investigation of the bedrock is necessary, pertinent data to be obtained include:

— Elevation of the rock surface and variation over the site

— Rock type and hardness
— Permeability
— Extent and character of weathering (including alteration of mineral constituents)
— Extent and distribution of solution channels in soluble rocks such as limestones
— Discontinuities such as bedding planes, faults, and joints
— Foliation or cleavage

Identification and classification of rock types for engineering purposes may be limited to broad, basic classes
in accordance with accepted geological standards.

The behavior of rock subjected to foundation loadings is a function of the deformation characteristics of the
rock mass which are controlled by rock discontinuities such as weathering, joints, and bedding planes.
Locating and evaluating the effects of such discontinuities requires carefully planned and executed investiga-
tions made by experienced, well-equipped drillers under the guidance of a competent specialist in the field.

Other significant factors affecting the behavior of rock as a foundation material include weathering and
hardness. There are no generally accepted criteria for these, although the Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
suggested by Deere [B47] is useful. The RQD is defined as the modified core recovery percentage in which
all pieces of sound core over four inches in length are counted as recovered. The smaller pieces are consid-
ered to be due to close shearing, jointing, faulting, or weathering in the rock mass and are not counted. The
RQD may be used for core boring as an indication of the effects of weathering aid discontinuities. It should
be noted that if RQD is to be determined, double-tube NX size core barrels with nonrotating inner barrels
that produce approximate 5 cm (2 in) φ diameter core must be used.

The drillers should proceed with maximum care for maximum possible recovery. Drillers should also pull
the core whenever they feel a blockage, grinding, or other indication of poor core recovery. The material that
is not recovered is frequently the most significant in deciding upon proper design. The time required to drill
each foot, total recovery, physical condition, length of pieces of core, joints, weathering, evidence of distur-
bance, or other effects should be noted on the drilling log.

Any comments by the driller with regard to the character of the drilling and difficulties encountered should
be included. Where massive rocks such as unweathered granite are encountered, good recoveries may be
obtained with smaller diameter drills, such as BX and AX sizes. Stepping down to these smaller sizes may
be necessary when in bouldery areas of deep weathering.

3.4 Soil and rock classification

Classification of soil and rock samples by visual description and simple manual tests is an important aspect
of a subsurface investigation program. The written visual description is the first means of conveying to the
engineer the types of subsurface materials along the r/w. This information will be used to determine the
parameters selected for designing the foundation.

Based on the visual classification of the soils or rocks, a series of index property tests are performed that
further aid in classification of the materials into categories and permit the engineer to decide what field or
laboratory tests, if any, will best describe the engineering properties of the soil and rock on a given project.

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 15

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

3.4.1 Soil classification

3.4.1.1 Index properties

Soil classification by index properties (that is, classifying them into broad groups having similar engineering
properties) is used primarily to qualitatively describe the soil. Engineering properties (strength, compress-
ibility, and permeability) are usually expensive and time-consuming to determine, especially since they must
be measured either in situ or from undisturbed samples which are tested in the laboratory. It is impractical
and uneconomical to try to measure the engineering properties everywhere throughout a large mass of soil.

Index properties can be measured more economically and quickly than engineering properties. With some
exceptions, they can be measured on disturbed samples which can be obtained with less difficulty and
expense than undisturbed samples.

Index properties are useful because they can be roughly correlated with the engineering properties. From his
knowledge of the empirical correlation between the index properties and engineering properties of soils or
rock, the designer can make use of the index properties for the following purposes:

— To select sites that have the most favorable subsoil conditions for a given transmission line
— To make a preliminary estimate of the engineering properties of the soil at a given site
— To select the most critical zones in the subsoils for more extensive investigation of the engineering
properties

Useful index properties for cohesionless and cohesive soils are summarized below:

(Cohesionless) (Cohesive)
Grain size Water content
Specific gravity Degree of saturation
Relative density Atterberg limits
Unit weight Specific gravity
Degree of saturation Void ratio
Standard penetration resistance Undrained strength
Cone penetration test —

The undrained strength of cohesive soils referred to in this context is the strength measured in the field by
means of a pocket penetrometer or vane shear device [B85]. These measurements are made on both undis-
turbed samples at each end of a tube sample and disturbed samples from a standard penetration test. The
measurements, which are quickly and easily performed when combined with the water content and Atterberg
limits, provide an excellent means for classifying cohesive soils and selecting specific samples on which
engineering property measurements can be made.

The standard penetration resistance is one of the most commonly used index properties for cohesionless
soils. A number of empirical relationships between SPT and the compressibility and shear strength of sands
have been developed. It should be emphasized that the standard penetration test is an index test and that care
must be emphasized when using only the SPT as the basis of a foundation design. The SPT is not listed as an
index property test in cohesive soils, since its application to the classification of cohesive soils is subject to
serious question, as discussed previously.

16 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

3.4.1.2 Visual classification

Soil classification, like the index properties, is used to convey qualitative information about the engineering
properties. Of the many soil classification systems in use by engineers, geologists, and pedologists, the Uni-
fied Soil Classification System [B37] is best suited for conveying significant information about the engineer-
ing properties of soils.

Soils are divided into three broad categories in the Unified Soil Classification System: Coarse-grained, fine-
grained, and highly organic. A whole spectrum of soil types, overlapping two or all three of these broad
categories, can be found in nature. Subdivisions within the broad categories make it possible to classify these
more complex soil types.

3.4.2 Rock classification

Generally, the engineering properties of a rock mass cannot be predicted with the precision expected in a soil
investigation. Although there are many field and laboratory tests available, there are no widely accepted
index properties that correlate with the engineering properties of the rock mass.

As mentioned in 3.3.3, the engineering properties of a rock mass are largely a function of the number, type,
spacing, and orientation of rock defects such as

— Joints
— Weathering
— Faults
— Bedding Planes
— Shear Zones
— Foliation
— Solution Channels

The geotechnical engineer or geologist should provide a lithologic description of the rock core, including the
geologic name given to the rock type on the basis of its mineralogical composition, texture, and in some
cases, its origin. Such names as granite, basalt, sandstone, shale, etc., evolve from such schemes and are gen-
erally understood by the foundation design engineer.

In addition to textural description, a generalized description of rock hardness should be included in the rock
description. As mentioned previously, even a soft rock generally will have adequate engineering properties
to support transmission structure foundations. However, as an aid in describing the rock core, the relative
terms soft, medium, or hard should be used to describe rock hardness.

In addition to the lithologic and textural description, additional rock drilling information should be obtained
during the coring operation. This information includes

— Rate of drilling with emphasis on the unusual

— Water losses
— Groundwater level
— Core recovery

An index used to evaluate the rock mass in terms of its discontinuities is the RQD; see 3.3.3. An RQD
approaching 100% denotes an excellent quality rock mass with properties similar to that of an intact speci-
men. RQD values ranging from 0 to 50% are indicative of a poor quality rock mass having a small fraction
of the strength and stiffness measured for an intact specimen.

Problems arise in the use of core fracture frequencies and RQD for determining the in situ rock mass quality.
The RQD and fracture frequency evaluate fractures in the core caused by the drilling process, as well as nat-
ural fractures previously existing in the rock mass. For example, when the core hole penetrates a fault zone

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 17

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

or a joint, additional breaks may form that, although not natural fractures, are caused by the natural planes of
weakness existing in the rock mass. These breaks should be included in the estimated rock quality. However,
some fresh breaks occur during drilling and handling of the core that are not related to the quality of the rock
mass. In certain instances, it may be advisable to include all fractures when estimating RQD and fracture fre-
quency. Considerable judgement is involved in the logging of rock core samples.

3.5 Engineering properties

To design foundations for transmission structures or evaluate the foundation performance under the loads
applied to the structure, it is necessary that certain geotechnical engineering properties be determined or esti-
mated. The performance of a transmission structure foundation and the dimensions and type of foundation
required is governed primarily by the shear strength and compressibility of the supporting soil. Estimated
values for the engineering properties required to compute ultimate capacity (for example, bearing, lateral,
uplift) or settlement of the foundation may often be obtained from correlations with various index properties
of the soil in which the foundation is constructed. Laboratory test procedures are available to measure the
shear strength and compressibility of various soil samples [B97].

3.5.1 Index property correlations

Various engineering properties pertaining to the shear strength or compressibility characteristics of both
cohesionless and cohesive soils may be estimated from appropriate index properties. While other correla-
tions exist, several useful relationships between engineering properties and index properties are discussed
below.

The shear strength of soils is normally expressed by the Mohr-Coulomb equation as:

s = c + σ n tanφ (1)

where

s is shear strength,
c is cohesion,
σn is normal stress,
φ is angle of internal friction.

In general, the shear strength of a soil determines the ultimate load carrying capacity of a foundation and,
consequently, must be estimated to design or analyze potential foundations for transmission structures. The
use of the engineering properties, c and φ, in determining the capacities of various foundation types will be
shown in later sections of this guide.

In cohesionless soils (c = 0), the value of ø and, therefore, the shear strength may be related to the gradation,
grain shape, and relative density of the soil mass, among other properties. The influence of grain shape and
gradation on the magnitude of ø may be discussed qualitatively. As the angularity of the soil grains
increases, the amount of particle interlocking increases. Well-graded soils (those containing roughly equal
amounts of a wide range of grain sizes) usually have a lower void ratio since the voids between larger parti-
cles are partially filled with the smaller soil particles. Both of these factors result in increases in the value of
the angle of internal friction, φ.

An approximate quantitative relationship exists between φ and the relative density of cohesionless soils,
which may be determined from laboratory test procedures or estimated from standard penetration tests con-
ducted during sampling operations in the field.

18 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

The Atterberg limits are laboratory tests to determine the influence of moisture content on the consistency of
cohesive soils. The liquid limit is defined as the water content at which transition from a plastic state to a liq-
uid state occurs and the plastic limit is the moisture content at which the soil behavior changes from non-
plastic to plastic state (test procedures to determine the Atterberg limits have been standardized and are dis-
cussed in any basic text on soil mechanics). The plasticity index (the numerical difference between the liquid
limit and the plastic limit) provides a measure of the range of water contents over which the soil remains
plastic.

Empirical correlations have been obtained which relate index properties to the compressibility of clay soils.
For normally consolidated clays (clay soils that have not previously experienced consolidation pressures
greater than the existing effective overburden pressure), the compression index, Cc, contained in the consoli-
dation settlement equations presented in Clause 4 may be related to the liquid limit as:

C c = 0.009 ( W l – 10 ) (2)

where

Wl is liquid limit in percent.

This discussion illustrates the usefulness of several index properties in estimating various engineering prop-
erties. Basic texts on soil mechanics and foundation analysis and design will provide other useful empirical
relationships that have been developed to provide estimates of engineering properties required for the analy-
sis and design of the various foundation types used to support transmission structures. The use of index
properties to estimate engineering properties should be done with caution, and the engineer should be aware
of how the relationships were developed and for what material. Whenever possible, correlation should be
verified with appropriate laboratory testing. The empirical relationships should not be accepted as a substi-
tute for laboratory tests to determine the engineering properties of soils along the route of the transmission
line. They may, however, often be used to supplement or reduce the amount of laboratory tests conducted
and may aid the engineer in selecting the areas along the route where more extensive investigation of engi-
neering properties is required.

3.5.2 Laboratory testing

As mentioned previously, the performance and load carrying capacity of various types of foundations
depend upon the shear strength and compressibility of the soil on which the foundation is constructed. Vari-
ous laboratory tests have been developed to investigate these properties of soil. Brief descriptions outlining
several useful laboratory tests are presented in this section to aid in the selection of appropriate tests to deter-
mine the engineering properties required in the analytical techniques presented in subsequent sections of this
guide.

The shear strength of soils is dependent not only on soil type, but also on test method and loading or drain-
age conditions imposed during testing of a sample. The two test methods most commonly used to determine
the shear strength of soils are the direct shear test and triaxial test.

The direct shear test is one of the earlier methods developed to determine the shear strength of various soils.
The test consists of shearing a soil sample across a predetermined failure plane. The soil specimen is
enclosed in a box consisting of an upper and lower half. The upper half is usually free to move vertically and
can slide horizontally with respect to the lower half of the box. A horizontal force is applied to the upper half
of the box either by controlling the loading rate or the rate at which the upper half of the box is displaced
horizontally, and both the displacement and load applied to the box are monitored. A stress-displacement
curve is obtained by plotting the shear stress versus shear displacement. Failure may be defined either at the
peak stress (for dense sand or stiff clays) or at an arbitrary displacement value (for loose cohesionless soil or
soft clays). At least three tests using different normal stresses (applied vertically to the top half of the box)

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 19

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

are required to determine the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope defined by Equation (1); see [B24], [B96] for
detailed descriptions of laboratory test procedures.

The direct shear test is relatively simple and inexpensive to perform, but often has been criticized because
the failure plane is predetermined. In addition, it is difficult to control sample volume and drainage condi-
tions or to obtain pore pressure measurements during testing. Consequently, some uncertainty may exist
with respect to the actual effective stresses existing in the sample during testing and at failure.

The triaxial test eliminates most of these difficulties. This test is conducted inside a cylindrical cell on cylin-
drical samples encased in rubber membranes. Hydrostatic confining pressure is applied to the sample by
application of pressure to the fluid inside the cell. Shear stresses in the sample are usually controlled by
applying an additional vertical stress (the deviator stress). Drainage from the sample may be controlled dur-
ing application of both the confining pressure and deviator stress, and pore pressures generated in the sample
during the test may be monitored. To obtain the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope (and consequently, φ and
c), several tests are performed using various confining pressures.

The shear strength parameters obtained from triaxial tests are dependent on the consolidation and drainage
conditions imposed prior to and during application of the deviator stress. Three conditions under which these
tests are conducted are described below:

a) Unconsolidated-Undrained Test (UU Test). No drainage is allowed during application of the confin-
ing pressure or the deviator stress. The unconfined compression test is a special case of the uncon-
solidated-undrained test with confining pressure equal to zero. The deviator stress at failure is the
unconfined compressive strength, qu, which is equal to two times the undrained shear strength, Su.
b) Consolidated-Undrained Test (CU Test). Drainage is allowed during application of the confining
stress. The sample is allowed to consolidate with respect to the applied pressure as observed via
drainage measurements. No drainage is allowed during the application of the deviator stress.
c) Consolidated-Drained Test (CD Test). Drainage takes place during the entire test. The deviator stress
is applied slowly enough so that pore pressures do not build up during shearing of the specimen.

Detailed descriptions of equipment and test procedures are contained in [B24] and [B96].

For soils of low permeability (such as clays), the CD test may require long periods of time to conduct so that
pore pressures will not be generated during shear; consequently, the test would be more expensive to con-
duct for this type of soil. The drained strength can be evaluated during the quicker CU test if pore water pres-
sures are measured.

With cohesionless soils, which drain relatively freely both during testing and in situ, the CD test is appropri-
ate and does not have the time restraints that are imposed when cohesive soils are tested. Table 1 provides
representative values for the angle of internal friction, ø, for various soil types and triaxial test conditions.

20 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

Table 1 Representative values for angle of internal friction φ

Type of testa
Soil
Unconsolidated- Consolidated-undrained Consolidated-drained
undrained UU CU CD

Gravel

Medium size 40°–55° 40°–55°

Sandy 35°–50° 35°–50°

Sand

Loose dry 28°–34°

Loose saturated 28°–34°

Dense dry 35°–46° 43°–50°

Dense saturated 1°–2° less than dense dry 43°–50°

Silt or silty sand

Loose 20°–22° 27°–30°

Dense 25°–30° 30°–35°

Clay 0° if saturated 3°–20° 20°–42°

NOTES:
1—Use larger values as unit weight, γ, increases.
2—Use larger values for more angular particles.
3—Use larger values for well-graded sand and gravel mixtures (GW, SW).
4—Average values for
Gravels: 35°–38°
Sands: 32°–34°
aSee a laboratory manual on soil testing for a complete description of these tests, e. g., Bowles (1986b) .

For cohesive soils, the value of the cohesion term, c, in Equation (1) is dependent upon mineral content, tri-
axial test conditions, and previous (geological) stress history.

The engineering properties governing the compressibility of soils may also be determined from laboratory
tests. In general, the settlement of a foundation in cohesionless soils is governed primarily by elastic/plastic
compression and is normally computed using expressions derived from the theory of elasticity (see
Clause 4). Settlement of foundations in cohesive soils may have both an immediate (elastic) component and
a time-dependent consolidation component.

The analysis to estimate the elastic or immediate settlement component of settlement for both cohesionless
and cohesive soils requires the determination or estimation of a stress-strain modulus (or modulus of elastic-
ity) and frequently a value for Poisson’s ratio. Various methods have been proposed for determining stress-
strain moduli from both conventional and cyclic triaxial tests [B27].

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 21

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

Engineering properties governing the consolidation settlement of cohesive soils (for example, clays) are nor-
mally determined from laboratory consolidation or oedometer tests. Consolidation of a soil may be defined
as the time-dependent reduction in void ratio due to the application of an applied compressive stress, such as
might be generated below the foundation of a transmission structure. The compressibility of a cohesive soil
is dependent upon the stress history of the soil. If the effective vertical stress below a foundation is less than
the maximum effective stress previously experienced by the soil, the settlement will be governed by the
recompression index, Cr, determined from laboratory consolidation tests. The void-ratio effective-stress rela-
tionship for stress levels exceeding the past maximum effective stress is governed by the so-called virgin
compression curve and the compression index, Cc. Detailed discussions of these parameters are presented in
various texts on soil mechanics and foundation engineering [B97], [B27], [B123] and a description of test
procedures and equipment [B96]. The use of the compression and recompression indexes in estimating con-
solidation settlement is demonstrated in 4.2.2.2.

The consolidation test and shear strength tests described above are normally conducted on undisturbed sam-
ples obtained during the subsurface investigation. It should be emphasized that the results of such laboratory
tests are very dependent upon the quality of the samples tested. Consequently, care should be exercised in
sampling, handling, and trimming the samples in preparation for testing. Undisturbed samples are difficult to
obtain for many cohesionless soils. However, recompacted samples will generally provide useful results pro-
vided that care is taken to ensure that the recompacted soil is tested in the same condition (for example, den-
sity) as existed in the field.

In addition to the laboratory tests discussed in this section, other specialized tests have been developed to
determine the engineering properties of soils. They are treated in laboratory soil testing manuals [B96].

3.5.3 In situ testing

In situ tests that measure the engineering properties of the subsurface materials in place are valuable for
designing transmission structure foundations. The most common types of in situ tests that may be useful are

— Vane shear
— Pressuremeter
— Plate loading

The vane shear test is used to measure the undrained shear strength of soft to medium clays. A small, four-
bladed vane attached to the end of a rod is pushed into the undisturbed clay at the bottom of a boring. The
rod is rotated at the ground surface, and torque and angle of rotation are measured. The measured torque can
be related to the shearing resistance developed on the periphery of the cylinder formed by the vanes rotating
in the clay. Apparatus and procedures for conducting vane shear tests are described in [B85]. The vane shear
test is not suitable in clays containing sand or silt layers, gravel, shells, or organic material.

Comparative studies between the undrained shear strength measured by the vane shear test and laboratory
tests on undisturbed samples indicate that the vane shear test can give results either above or below labora-
tory strength measurements [B152]. Proper interpretation of vane shear test data requires careful sampling
and identification of the soil; therefore, the vane shear test should be performed under the direction of a geo-
technical engineer.

The pressuremeter is an instrument designed to measure the in situ modulus of deformation and may be used
to determine the in situ state of stress and strength. The pressuremeter consists of an expandable probe that is
lowered into a borehole and expanded to contact the sides of the boring. The expandable probe, activated by
water pressure, is connected to a volumeter-manometer on the ground surface. After lowering the probe to the
desired depth, it is expanded by applying pressure that can be determined by the volume; hence, a curve of
pressure versus volume is obtained. This data may be used to determine a horizontal modulus of deformation.
It is recommended that pressuremeter testing be performed under the direction of a geotechnical engineer.

22 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

Menard [B109] has proposed a means of using the pressuremeter to determine the horizontal subgrade mod-
ulus. The horizontal subgrade modulus is used to design drilled pier foundations (see Clause 5).

The plate-loading test is a means of estimating the bearing capacity and determining the modulus of vertical
subgrade reaction by obtaining a load versus deformation curve from which a modulus of deformation is
computed. The general procedure for performing a plate-loading test is described in ASTM D1194-94
[B13]. Particular attention is drawn to Note 3 in [B13], which points out that the deflection of a foundation to
a given load is a function of the foundation size and shape and the groundwater table location with respect to
the bottom of the foundation.

When plate-loading tests are being considered, an alternative method would be to construct a concrete foun-
dation of one-half or one-third scale at the depth of the final foundation. Data from a field test of this scale
will be more readily interpreted and applied to the final foundation design.

It is important that field tests be located at those sites that are representative of the majority of soil conditions
on the line route. Generally, if only one test is performed, it will be at a location that is judged to represent
the poorest subsurface conditions. If the purpose of the field test is to refine the foundation design for a large
number of foundations, then the field test should be performed at a location that is representative of a large
number of foundation locations. However, considerable experience and judgement is required in the applica-
tion of in situ test results to the design of foundations.

4. Design of spread foundations

4.1 Structural applications

The spread foundation is suitable and commonly used as support for lattice transmission towers. Less com-
mon applications are for single shaft and framed structures. The most frequently used types are steel gril-
lages, pressed plates, cast-in-place concrete, and precast concrete. A description of each of these foundation
types is presented in the following.

4.1.1 Foundation types

4.1.1.1 Steel grillages

Figure 8 indicates three typical types of steel grillages. Figure 8, part A, is a pyramid arrangement in which
the leg stub is connected to four smaller stubs which are connected to the grillage at the base. The advantage
of this type of construction is that the pyramid can transfer the horizontal shear load down to the grillage
base by truss action. However, the pyramid arrangement does not permit much flexibility for adjusting the
assembly, if needed. In addition, it is difficult to compact the backfill inside the pyramid.

Figure 8, part B shows a grillage foundation which has the single leg stub carried directly to the grillage
base. The horizontal shear is transferred through shear members that engage the passive lateral resistance of
the adjacent compacted soil. It is important that the bottom shear member and diagonal be connected to the
leg stub at an adequate depth below the ground surface to mobilize the passive resistance of the compacted
backfill.

Figure 8, part C also has the single leg stub carried directly to the grillage base. This type of grillage founda-
tion has a leg reinforcer which increases the area for mobilizing passive soil pressure as well as increasing
the leg strength. The shear is transferred to the soil via the leg and reinforcer and resisted by passive soil
pressure.

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 23

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

The base grillage of these three typical foundations consists of steel beams, angles, or channels which trans-
fer the bearing or uplift loads to the soil.

The advantages of steel grillage foundations include: low cost, ease of installation, and immediate tower
installation, and they can be purchased with the tower steel, while concrete is not required at the site. The
disadvantage is that these foundations may have to be designed before any soil borings are obtained and then
may have to be enlarged by pouring a concrete base around the grillage if actual soil conditions are not as
good as those assumed in the original design. In addition, large grillages are difficult to set with required
accuracy.

Figure 8—Various steel grillage foundations

4.1.1.2 Pressed plates

A typical pressed plate foundation is shown in Figure 9. This arrangement is similar to the grillages shown in
Figure 8, part B except that the base grillage is replaced by a pressed plate. Figure 10 indicates a bipod foun-
dation which has a truss in one direction. In both of the designs shown, the net horizontal shear at the level
where the diagonal is attached to the stub is resisted by the passive soil pressure. An apparent disadvantage
of this type of foundation is the possibility of loose sand under the dish portion of the plate which could
increase settlement.

24 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

Figure 9—Typical plate foundation

4.1.1.3 Cast-in-place concrete

This type of foundation consists of a base mat and a square or cylindrical pier. It is constructed of reinforced
or plain concrete, and several variations exist as indicated in Figure 11. The stub angle can be bent and the
pier and mat centered. Alternatively, the mat can be located so that the projection from the stub angle inter-
sects the centroid of the mat, or the pier itself can be battered to the tower leg slope.

Since the mat is required to resist both compression and uplift loads, top and bottom reinforcing steel may be
provided to resist the bending moments developed. As required, a construction joint should be provided
between the mat and the pier.

Stub angles are embedded in the top of the pier so that the upper exposed section can be spliced directly to
the main tower leg and diagonals. The embedded members should be of adequate size to resist the axial
loads transmitted from the main leg and diagonals, plus any secondary bending moment from the horizontal
shear, if applicable. The embedded member must be embedded in the concrete to a sufficient depth to trans-
mit the load to the concrete. Bolted clip angles, welded stud shear connectors, or bottom plates may be
added on the end of the stub angle to reduce this length, as shown in Figure 12. Anchor bolts can also be
used in lieu of the direct embedment stub angle, as shown in Figure 11, part C. ANSI/ASCE 10-97, Section
9 [B5] describes the latest embedment design.

4.1.1.4 Precast concrete

This type of foundation is very similar to the cast-in-place concrete foundation, except that the mat is precast
elsewhere and delivered to the construction site. Stub angles or anchor bolts may be embedded in the piers
during fabrication to provide a connection with the superstructure. The piers may also be cast in the field
after the precast mat has been placed and a suitable connection installed prior to pouring the concrete. Care
should be exercised to ensure that a uniform contact surface is provided between the precast mat and the soil,
and that the soil immediately below the mat is well-compacted.

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 25

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

Figure 10—Typical bipod footing

26 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

Figure 11—Cast in place concrete foundation

4.1.1.5 Rock foundations

Many areas of the United States have bedrock either exposed at the ground surface or covered with a thin
mantle of soil. Relatively simple, economical, and efficient rock foundations may be installed where this
type of terrain is encountered. A rock foundation can be designed to resist both uplift and compression loads
plus horizontal shear and, in some structure applications, bending moments. Where suitable bedrock is
encountered at the surface or close to the surface, a rock foundation, as shown in Figure 13, can be installed.

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 27

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

Figure 12—Stub angles

28 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

The determination of whether a rock formation is suitable for installation of rock foundations is an engineer-
ing judgment based on a number of factors which were discussed previously in Clause 3. Test holes, field
inspection of the excavation, knowledge of the local geology, past experience, and load tests should be con-
sidered in this evaluation. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is useful in helping to evaluate rock suit-
ability [B46].

Since the bearing capacity of rock is usually much greater than the uplift capacity, care must be exercised in
designing for uplift [B88]. The rock sockets can be roughened, grooved, or shaped to increase the uplift
capacity [B88]. The design of foundations in rock to resist uplift loads is similar to the design of rock
anchors discussed in 7.3.1.

Figure 13—Rock foundation

4.1.2 Foundation orientation

The foundations for lattice towers can be installed with a vertical pier or a pier battered to the same slope as
the tower leg, as shown in Figure 14. The pier may be round, square, or rectangular in cross-section and may
be of constant section or be tapered to a greater width at the bottom to provide extra strength for the bending
moment caused by the horizontal shear at the top of the pier. Generally, the tapered pier will prove to be less
economical because of the more complex formwork required.

The pier may also be vertical, as shown in Figure 11, part A, but offset to allow the center of gravity of the
stub angle to intersect the centroid of the mat. Alternatively, the pier may be vertical and the stub angle bent,
as indicated in Figure 11, part B. The piers and mats can be oriented as shown for Section A-A or for Section
B-B in Figure 14. Normally, the orientation of Section A-A gives a better resolution of forces from the two
tower faces.

The disadvantage of the vertical pier shown in Figure 14, Section B-B, is the necessity of designing for a
large horizontal shear at the top of the pier.

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 29

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

Figure 14—Footing orientation

30 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

When the pier is oriented as shown in Figure 14, Section A-A, the axial forces will continue down through
the pier to the center of the mat. Consequently, the horizontal shear load at the top of the pier is greatly
reduced for dead-end and large line angle towers. The remaining shear load at the top of the pier can be
resisted either by passive soil pressure or by pier bending or a combination of both. Therefore, with dead-end
and large line angle tower foundations, the piers and mats can be designed more economically as shown in
Figure 14, Section A-A. For tangent tower foundations, the differential shear between straight and battered
piers is usually not significant.

As shown in Figure 14, the grillage and plate foundations are relatively easy to orient and adjust as required.

4.2 Analysis

The design of spread foundations for transmission towers must consider the following:

— Load direction
— Load magnitude
— Load duration
— Static vs. cyclic loads
— Foundation movement

This section presents methods of estimating the uplift and compression (bearing) capacities and the settle-
ment of spread foundations. Additional details on uplift and compression analysis of spread foundations for
transmission structures are contained in References [B82], [B3], [B168], [B148], and [B158].

Although concrete foundations are used in the discussion, the methods presented here are applicable to other
spread foundation types. Minor modifications to the methods are suggested as necessary to consider the type
or geometry of the foundation.

4.2.1 Compression capacity

The allowable compression capacity of a spread foundation may be controlled either by the stability of the
soil-foundation system (bearing capacity) or by the need to limit the total or differential settlement of the
structure. The methods to compute the bearing capacity and settlement are given in the following sections.

4.2.1.1 Bearing capacity

The maximum load per unit area that can be placed on a soil at a given depth is the ultimate bearing capacity,
qult. As shown in Figure 15, qult is the maximum load, Q, divided by the foundation area, B × L, at depth D.
Q includes the structure loads, weight of the foundation, and weight of the backfill within the volume B × L
× D. In Figure 15, the soil within the shear surface is assumed to behave as a rigid plastic medium which is
idealized by an active Rankine zone (I), a radial Prandtl zone (II), and a passive Rankine zone (III). The soil
above the foundation base is treated as an equivalent surcharge.

The general solution is the Buisman-Terzaghi equation given below:

1
q ult = cN c + --- Bγ N γ + qN q (3)
2

where

c is soil cohesion,
B is foundation width,
q is surcharge (γD),

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 31

IEEE
Std 691-2001 IEEE GUIDE FOR TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE

D is foundation depth,
γ is soil unit weight,
Nc, Nγ, Nq are dimensionless bearing capacity factors.

Figure 15—General description of bearing capacity

This equation includes the Prandtl and Reissner solutions for a load on a weightless medium, resulting in:

π tan φ 2
Nq = e tan ( 45 + φ ⁄ 2 ) (4)

N c = ( N q – 1 ) cot φ (5)

NOTE—As φ → 0, Nc → 5.14

where

φ is soil angle of friction.

Values of Nc and Nq are given in Table 2 and Figure 16. The Nγ term is given as:

N γ ≈ 2 ( N q + 1 ) tan φ (6)

which is Vesic’s approximation [B162] of the numerical solution by Caquot and Kerisel [B35] that uses ψ =
45° + φ/2 in Figure 15. The solid line (for Nγ) in Figure 16 is Vesic’s approximation, which is within 5% for
φ = 20° to 40°.

Equation (3) has been developed for the following idealized conditions:

— General shear failure in the soil

— Horizontal ground surface
— Horizontal, infinitely long, strip foundation at shallow depth
— Vertical loading, concentrically applied

32 Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved.

.
 IEEE
FOUNDATION DESIGN AND TESTING Std 691-2001

Figure 16—Bearing capacity factors for shall foundations

Table 2—Bearing-capacity factors Nc, Nq and Nγ

φ Nc Nq Nγ Nq/Nc tanφ

0 5.14 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.00

1 5.38 1.09 0.07 0.20 0.02

2 5.63 1.20 0.15 0.21 0.03

3 5.90 1.31 0.24 0.22 0.05

4 6.19 1.43 0.34 0.23 0.07

5 6.49 1.57 0.45 0.24 0.09

6 6.81 1.72 0.57 0.25 0.11

7 7.16 1.88 0.71 0.26 0.12

8 7.53 2.06 0.86 0.27 0.14

9 7.92 2.25 1.03 0.28 0.16

10 8.35 2.47 1.22 0.30 0.18

11 8.80 2.71 1.44 0.31 0.19

12 9.28 2.97 1.69 0.32 0.21

Copyright © 2001 IEEE. All rights reserved. 33