cooling prize paper

The uplift capacity of transmission

pylon foundations
Frederick Levy, University of Southampton and National Grid UK

Abstract
The National Grid high
voltage network requires urgent
refurbishment to accommodate
the demands of the 21st century.
However, there is significant
uncertainty surrounding the
in-service uplift performance
of transmission pylon shallow
foundations under dynamic
(wind) loading. This uncertainty
has been driven by the apparent
understrength of foundations when
tested using current industry testing
practice.
A suite of full-scale tests on
transmission pylon foundations
was commissioned at a London
clay site in Kent. The tests aimed to
mimic in-service dynamic loading
to reveal the mechanisms associated
with rapid foundation uplift. It was
shown that foundations founded on
London clay mobilised significantly
greater uplift capacities at smaller
displacements compared with
current industry practice.
The results also suggested that
aspects of current uplift design,
namely failure mechanism geometry
and ultimate limit state criterion,
may also require revision.
1. Introduction
In the UK there are approximately
22,000 high voltage (275/400kV)
transmission pylons supported
by a shallow foundation under
each pylon leg. The loading of a
transmission pylon will result in
the foundation system being loaded
in tension (uplift) or compression
(bearing) (Figure 1).
To prevent excessive buckling
stresses, differential movement
of the foundation system needs
to be limited. During loading
the compression foundations
displacement will be limited due to
soil beneath it, whereas as uplifted
foundation is pulled out of the
ground it accumulates resistance
before eventually shedding all load
carrying capacity. The performance
of the system therefore relies on a
sound understanding of foundation
uplift performance.
Table 1: Foundation design parameters
Soil strength Type Measurement Frustrum angle (o)
Cohesionless Strong SPT N 15 (N<20)
Weak 25
Cohesive Strong Undrained shear 15 (su<49)
Weak strength (su) 25
Source: National Grid, 2004
Table 2: The design test from BS EN61773:1996
Test type Load steps of design Increment time (minutes)
capacity (%)
Design test 25, 50, 70, 80, 90 and 10
100 30 at 100%
Source: BSI, 1996
The high voltage network pylon foundation system behaviour
with incremental upgrades and is therefore required to facilitate
refurbishments has been able to this upgrade in a cost-effective and
weather nearly half a century of timely manner.
changing demand and generation Recent studies undertaken by
patterns. The recent 2020 University of Southampton and
renewable targets (BERR, 2008) field tests by National Grid have
in combination with saturation of demonstrated that the design
capacity has necessitated a major basis for transmission pylon
program of restringing and uprating foundations may not be reliable.
old cables (Clark et al., 2006). This It has been statistically shown that
program will result in significant when subject to testing, half of the
increases of loading on transmission foundations tested did not reach
pylon foundations systems due to their uplift design capacity (Figure
larger cable sizes. 2). Yet the present failure rate of
The need for a better pylon foundations is extremely low,
understanding of transmission suggesting that there are additional

100
Percentage of sample (%)

Vertical loads
Horizontal loads
(tranverse and
longitudinal components) 80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Uplift resistance/design capacity (%)

Figure 1: Transmission pylon foundation system and loading Figure 2: Sample of field tests (n=45)

24 ground engineering october 2013

 Load

Backfill
H=3m

25 25

London
Clay

B=1.45m

2.5m
Figure 3: L4M foundation Figure 4: Construction of an L4M foundation

factors contributing to uplift centrifuge modelling from being

resistance. made.
Centrifuge model tests on This paper aims to investigate
transmission pylon foundations has pylon foundation capacity by
shown that uplift resistance under conducting a set of full-scale
rapid loading may be enhanced due rapid foundation uplift testing to
to the development of negative pore compare the dynamic response to
water pressures (suctions) across the standard static testing practise. The
foundation base. It was shown that purpose of the field tests was to
this increase in uplift resistance had introduce the effects of construction
a log linear relationship with the practices, tolerances and defects
uplift velocity (Lehane et al., 2008). typical of those encountered in the
These model tests were conducted field that are likely to influence the
using kaolin clay the preferred performance of a foundation subject
soil for centrifuge modelling work to uplift.
due to its uniformity and drainage Figure 5: Load application
characteristics. However, it exhibits 2. Design and construction
a soft response in comparison to practice (National Grid, 2004) that extends The ultimate limit state (ULS)
clays encountered in the field. Uplift resistance (specified by to the surface from the base of the displacement criterion of shallow
Similarly, the close control in model National Grid in TS 3.04.15) foundation (Figure 3). The frustum foundations is considered to be
tests may not be replicated in the is derived from weight of the angle, and therefore the geometry of approximately 10% of foundation
field. These limitations prevent foundation and soil, contained the failure mechanism, is governed width (B) (BSI, 2004). However,
confident extrapolations from within an inverted frustum by the insitu soil properties (Table 1). the ULS displacement (w) criterion
of specified in TS 3.04.15 for all
Table 3: Load schedule foundations is w = 10mm. This
value is based on the assumption
Foundation Test Backfill Base Uplift velocity (mm/s) Displacement w (mm)
that it represents the elastic limit of
1 1-A Loose London London clay 35 150 the backfill in uplift (CIGRE, 1998).
clay A truncated mass concrete
pyramid base with a reinforced
2 2-A Dense London London clay 5 15 concrete inclined chimney is the
clay 15 most common foundation type for
2-B 150
transmission pylons in the UK. The
3 3-A Type 2 Type 2 15 15 foundation is cast inside a large
3-B 10 150 excavation typically backfilled using
excavated or imported material
4 4-A Type 2 London clay Design test - compacted in 300mm layers.
4-B 15 150 Foundation testing practice in the
5 5-A Type 2 London clay 35 150 UK is codified by EN 61773:1996
(BSI, 1996). A summary of

ground engineering october 2013 25

cooling prize paper
Corrected cone resistance, qt (MPa) Sleeve friction (kPa)
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 50 100 150 200
0 0
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
0-3m = Type 2
-2 3-10m+ = London clay -2

0-10m = London clay

-4 -4

-6 -6

0-3m = Type 2
-8 -8
3-10m+ = London clay
0-10m = London clay
-10 -10

Figure 6: Cone resistance profiles (Foundation 5) Figure 7: Sleeve friction profiles (Foundation 5)

the incremental design test is the isolation of each resistance

presented in Table 2. This type mechanism. The performance Pore water pressure (kPa)
of test has been routinely used to of footings subjected to dynamic -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
assess foundation capacity since loading was scrutinised by using 0
Depth (m)

the 1960s (Parr and Vanner, 1962)
and is the source of the uncertainty
surrounding the in service uplift
performance of transmission pylon
foundations.
3. Field tests
3.1 Site layout and load schedule
Five foundations were constructed at
the Building Research Establishment
London clay test site at Lodge Hill
Camp in Chattenden during August
2009. The foundations were designed
and constructed to TS 3.04.15
(National Grid, 2004) with uplift
capacities of 420kN.
To determine whether suctions
occurred at field scale the
foundations were installed with
different base contact conditions,
backfill material and uplifted at
different velocities to w/B = 10%
(150mm). Two foundations were
backfilled with compacted or loose
London clay representing early
construction practices (Parr and
Vanner, 1962). The remaining
foundations used compacted Type
2 a coarse granular material from
recycled aggregate (Department of
Transport, 2009) and represented
current practice.
The load schedule in Table 3,
in combination with the different
forms of construction, allowed
varying uplift velocities and
displacements. A design test to BS
EN61773:1996 (BSI, 1996) was also
carried out to provide design test
results for the L4M foundation type.
Load was applied to each
foundation stubs using an inclined
hydraulic jack (Figure 4). The load-
displacement behaviour of the
foundations was measured using
a load cell mounted above the
hydraulic jack and linear voltage
displacement transducers (LVDTs)
on a reference beam.
3.2 Ground conditions
Chattenden has been used
extensively for foundation testing
due to its deep (~30m) and uniform
London clay strata. Testing was
conducted over two weeks in July
2012. Due to wet weather in the
weeks prior to testing the top layer
of weathered clay became soft
requiring remediation with 40t of
stone.
Five 10m deep cone penetration
tests (CPTs) were used to
characterise the site and backfills.
The measurements of pore water
pressure from the CPTs through the
backfills confirmed that water had
significantly infiltrated the voids
in the London clay and Type 2
backfills (Figure 8). The pooling of
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Figure 8: Pore water pressure through backfills and in situ clay
water at the base of the excavations
in combination with the rapid uplift
velocities was expected to result in
the development of an undrained
condition (suctions) on the base of
the foundations.
The inundation of water in the
compacted Type 2 granular backfills
appears to have caused a significant
loss in strength resulting in very low
penetration resistances (Figures
6 and 7). The low strength of the
granular backfill contrasts with the
relatively stiff and homogeneous in
situ London clay. The CPT results
from Foundations 1 suggested
Foundation 1
Foundation 2
the same loss in strength was not
experienced in the London clay
backfills.
The inferred values of undrained
shear strength (su) and density ()
of the London clay corroborated
with previous observations (Butcher
et al., 2008). A summary of the
in situ values from the CPTs at
Footing 5 is presented in Table 4.
These values were used for a set of
effective and total numerical back-
analysis studies.
Table 5 presents a summary of the
record uplift resistances (Q). Only
the rapidly loaded foundations on

Table 4: CPT results

Depth (m) E backfill (kPa) E insitu (kPa) backfill insitu backfill (o) insitu (o) Su backfill (kPa) Su insitu
(kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kPa)
1.5 T2: 7,840 7,185 T2: 17.4 18.0 T2: 31 32 T2: n/a 31.8
LC: 11,600 LC: 17.6 LC: 32 LC: 50
3 T2: 1,770 12,300 T2: 15.3 18.3 T2: 31 31 T2: n/a 54.8
LC: 13,400 LC: 18.5 LC: 32 LC: 76

10 n/a 31,800 n/a 19.3 n/a 32 n/a 132.5

26 ground engineering october 2013

 300 6

Suction factor
Normalised uplift resistance, Q/A (kN/m2)

Field test
Lehane et al (2008)
250 5

200 4

150 3

Test 1-A 2
100
Test 2-B
Test 5-A
50 vf=100mm/s, Lehane et al (2008) 1
vf=30mm/s, Lehane et al (2008)
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

Normalised displacement, w/B (%) Normalised uplift velocity, vfB/cv

Figure 9: Rapid load test results Figure 10: Suction factor

600 500
Uplift resistance (kN), applied load (KN)

Uplift resistance (kN)

500
400

400
300
300

200
200 Test 5-A
Test 3-B Eu /su=490
Test 4-A (design test) 100 Eu=184 MPa, Gasparre et al (2007)
100
Test 5-A Eu=122 MPa, Gasparre et al (2007)
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement, w (mm) Displacement, w (mm)

Figure 11: Design test results compared to pullout tests Figure 12 Total stress numerical results

London clay mobilised resistances extremely stiff response, 90% peak was limited by operational value of When compared using a suction
that were within 10% of the design resistance before w/B = 1%. The su of the London clay underneath factor, where the capacity difference
capacity at ULS. The design test different uplift rates did not affect the foundations. between foundations with and
(Foundation 4 Test 4-A) only the load-displacement behaviour. Figure 9 compares the field tests without suction is normalised with
reached ~50% of its design capacity The measured differences in uplift with results from the aforementioned the foundation area and su on the
at w = 10mm, consistent with capacities between rapid tests was centrifuge tests (Lehane et al., 2008) base (Qsucton - Qno suction/suB2),
previous observations (Parr and <10% at w = 10mm with a maximal with uplift capacities normalised to the results from the Chattenden
Vanner, 1962, Clark et al., 2006). difference of 50kN at peak. From the foundation base areas. The peak field test closely match that from the
Lehane et al. (2008) it is inferred capacities of the centrifuge tests centrifuge model tests (Figure 10). It
4.1 Rapidly loaded foundations that the rate independence meant are within ~20% of the field tests, is proposed that the spline fit from
The rapidly loaded foundations that full suctions occurred on the which may be due to differences in Lehane et al. (2008) is replicated
on London clay exhibited an base and therefore peak capacity the values of su between tests. for different values of consolidation
coefficient (cv = khE/w).
Table 5: Summary of results
4.2 Static design tests results
Foundation Test Q10mm Q25mm Qpeak (kN) Design capacity A design test (BSI, 1996) was
(ULS) (kN) (kN) (kN) carried out on Foundation 4
(Figure 11). Under the applied
1 1-A 416 436 439 420
load increments the foundation
2 2-A 391 - 432 420 performed poorly, reaching only
2-B 367 440 471 420 50% of design capacity at ULS. The
difference between the rapid loading
3 3-A 332 - 350 420 methodology and the design test
3-B 162 247 571 420 was marked. It has previously been
shown that peak loads are applied
4 4-A 234 234 303 420 rapidly (Clark et al., 2006). It may
4-B 162 224 515 420 therefore be the case that the rapid
5 5-A 433 455 483 420 test is more applicable and the
design test is unduly conservative.

ground engineering october 2013 27

cooling prize paper
Figure 11 also shows the
results from Test 3-B; rapid uplift
excluding suction. It is evident
that the performance of Type 2
granular fill is extremely poor. Large
displacements were required for
the backfill to compact sufficiently
to reach design capacity. Such a
poor performance will require a
re-evaluation of the use coarse
granular material, specifically
Type 2, when used in excavations
bounded by London clay.
5. Numerical modelling
A set of numerical back-analysis
studies were conducted to
reproduce the load-displacement
behaviour of the tested foundations.
An axisymmetric foundation finite
element model was analysed using
OASYS SAFE (Oasys, 2009) with
total and effective stress soil models.
The total stress soil model was
used to examine the mobilised
undrained shear strength and
stiffness on the base of the
foundation. The stiffness of the
Chattenden field tests varied
between Eu = 184MPa (w 2.5mm)
and Eu/su = 490 (w = 50mm)
(Figure 12). The former stiffness
value corresponds to undrained
triaxial tests on London clay
samples from Heathrow Terminal 5
(Gasparre et al., 2007).
The large values of stiffness
contrast starkly to the soft kaolin
clay (Eu/su = 50) used in previous
centrifuge model tests (Rattley et al.,
2008). The numerical back analysis
also suggested that the operational
value of su on the foundation bases
was on average 41kPa, close to
the CPTs values recorded on site
suggesting that there may be merit
in using such instrumentation to
predict uplift resistances.
The effective stress model aimed
to capture the development of the
granular backfill failure mechanism.
The displacement vector plots
of Figure 13 show that the uplift
resistance at w = 10mm is solely
due to the backfill overburden
immediately above the pyramid.
The failure mechanism at w = 50mm
reaches the excavation interface
but breakout was not observed on
site. Both of these observations are
contrary to the design methodology
of the frustum method (National
Grid, 2004).
6. Impact
The finds of the field tests have
highlighted significant limitations of
current design and testing practice.
Current design practice makes use
of the frustum mechanism, which
due the geometry of excavations is
assumed to breakout of the backfill
into the insitu soil. However, it
has been demonstrated through
28 ground engineering october0
Figure 13: Granular backfill failure modes at w = 10mm and
w = 50mm
numerical back analysis that the
failure mechanism may not occur
when granular backfill is used to
fill an excavation in cohesive soil.
There therefore must be a careful
re-examination of the failure
mechanism used in design, with
attention paid to combinations of
backfill and insitu material.
The field tests showed that the
expectation that full uplift capacity
will be mobilised within the specified
ULS criterion of w = 10mm may be
unreasonable. The field test results
indicate that only those foundations
that mobilised suctions had uplift
capacities within 5% of design
capacity at w = 10mm. To develop
a more legitimate criterion a
rigorous examination of foundation
system performance (differential
movement) with relation to the
development of buckling stresses
in the transmission pylon structure
needs to be undertaken.
Finally, the design test according
to BS EN61773:1996 (BSI,
1996) appears to yield extremely
conservative results in comparison
to the rapid uplift methodology.
Both methods seek to apply the
maximum design load arising
from transmission pylon design.
Crucially, the rapid methodology
does so within 2s, which may better
replicate the dynamic loading of
transmission pylon compared to
the static incremental loading of
the design test. Current statnamic
testing of piles bears the closest
relation to the dynamic testing used
at Chattenden.
7. Conclusions
The series of field tests on a number
of full-scale L4M footings has
confirmed that base suction may
contribute significantly to footing
performance. The results have
also shown that the design uplift
performance may be not reached
(in general) before the specified
ultimate limit state. This includes
the performance of footings where
suction developed. In the cases
where suctions did not develop, the
uplift performance of the footings
was extremely poor.
Also demonstrated was that
current testing practice may have
led to an undue underestimation of
foundation uplift capacity due to the
manner of test load application.
The differences in observed uplift
resistances due to rapid loading
requires further consideration
of the in service applied loading
typically transmitted to foundation
systems. This can be achieved
through careful instrumentation
and monitoring through foundation
systems from their base upwards
using accelerometers together
with instrumentation to determine
external loads and structural loads.
With recent developments in
data logging and transmission it
would be relatively straightforward
to fully instrument a high voltage
transmission pylon from the base
upwards. Through such endeavours
a better design and testing rationale
may be developed, leading to more
sustainable refurbishment solutions.
Acknowledgments
The work presented forms part of
a wider examination of shallow
foundation performance, funded
and supported by the National Grid.
The author is grateful for technical
advice and support from David
Clutterbuck and Boud Boumeced
of National Grid and University
of Southampton professor David
Richards.
The foundations were constructed
by Grid Line Foundations and
testing was undertaken by ESG.
The support of Andrew
Hewitt of Lankelma is also
gratefully acknowledged.
References
BERR (2008) UK Renewable Energy
Strategy. Department for Business
Enterprise Regulatory Reform,
London, UK.
BSI (1996) EN 61773:1996. Overhead
lines Testing of foundations for
structures. BSI, London, UK.
BSI (2004) EN 1997-1:2004.
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design,
Part 1: General rules. BSI, London,
UK.
Butcher, A P; Powell, J M M;
Kightley, M; and Troughton, V (2008)
Comparison of behaviour of CFA
piles in London clay as determined
by static, dynamic and rapid testing
methods. In 5th International
Symposium on Deep Foundations on
Bored and Auger Piles (BAP V) (Van
Impe, P & Van Impe, W F (eds)). CRC
Press, Ghent, Belgium. pp. 205-212.
CIGRE, (1998) Probabilistic Design
of Transmission Line Structure
Foundations. International Council
on Large Electronic Systems, Paris,
France, SC-22 WG07.
Clark, M; Richards, D J; and
Clutterbuck, D (2006) Measured
dynamic performance of electricity
transmission towers following
controlled broken-wire events.
International Council on Large
Electronic Systems, Paris, France,
Paper B2-313.
Department of Transport (2009)
MCHW Volume 1 Series 800, Road
pavements Unbound Cement and
Other Hydraulically Bound Mixtures.
DoT, London, UK.
Gasparre, A; Nishimura, S; Minh, N A;
Coop, M R; and Jardine, R J (2007)
The stiffness of natural London Clay.
Gotechnique, 57(1): 3-18.
Lehane, B M; Gaudin, C; Richards,
D J; and Rattley, M J (2008) Rate
effects on the vertical uplift capacity
of footings founded in clay.
Gotechnique, 58(1): 13-21.
National Grid (2004) TS 3.4.15.
Overhead line support foundations.
NG, Warwick, UK.
Oasys 2009. Safe: Version 19.
London, UK.
Parr, R G; and Vanner, M J (1962)
Strength Tests on Overhead Line
Tower Foundations. Electrical
Research Association, Leatherhead,
UK, Report O/T28.
Rattley, M J; Richards, D J; and Lehane,
B M (2008) Uplift performance
of transmission tower foundations
embedded in clay. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 134(4): 531-540.
2013