Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Abstract
The National Grid high Table 1: Foundation design parameters
voltage network requires urgent Soil strength Type Measurement Frustrum angle (o)
refurbishment to accommodate
the demands of the 21st century. Cohesionless Strong SPT N 15 (N<20)
However, there is significant Weak 25
uncertainty surrounding the
in-service uplift performance Cohesive Strong Undrained shear 15 (su<49)
of transmission pylon shallow Weak strength (su) 25
foundations under dynamic
(wind) loading. This uncertainty Source: National Grid, 2004
has been driven by the apparent
understrength of foundations when
tested using current industry testing Table 2: The design test from BS EN61773:1996
practice.
Test type Load steps of design Increment time (minutes)
A suite of full-scale tests on
capacity (%)
transmission pylon foundations
was commissioned at a London Design test 25, 50, 70, 80, 90 and 10
clay site in Kent. The tests aimed to 100 30 at 100%
mimic in-service dynamic loading
to reveal the mechanisms associated Source: BSI, 1996
with rapid foundation uplift. It was
shown that foundations founded on
London clay mobilised significantly the foundation system being loaded The high voltage network pylon foundation system behaviour
greater uplift capacities at smaller in tension (uplift) or compression with incremental upgrades and is therefore required to facilitate
displacements compared with (bearing) (Figure 1). refurbishments has been able to this upgrade in a cost-effective and
current industry practice. To prevent excessive buckling weather nearly half a century of timely manner.
The results also suggested that stresses, differential movement changing demand and generation Recent studies undertaken by
aspects of current uplift design, of the foundation system needs patterns. The recent 2020 University of Southampton and
namely failure mechanism geometry to be limited. During loading renewable targets (BERR, 2008) field tests by National Grid have
and ultimate limit state criterion, the compression foundations in combination with saturation of demonstrated that the design
may also require revision. displacement will be limited due to capacity has necessitated a major basis for transmission pylon
soil beneath it, whereas as uplifted program of restringing and uprating foundations may not be reliable.
1. Introduction foundation is pulled out of the old cables (Clark et al., 2006). This It has been statistically shown that
In the UK there are approximately ground it accumulates resistance program will result in significant when subject to testing, half of the
22,000 high voltage (275/400kV) before eventually shedding all load increases of loading on transmission foundations tested did not reach
transmission pylons supported carrying capacity. The performance pylon foundations systems due to their uplift design capacity (Figure
by a shallow foundation under of the system therefore relies on a larger cable sizes. 2). Yet the present failure rate of
each pylon leg. The loading of a sound understanding of foundation The need for a better pylon foundations is extremely low,
transmission pylon will result in uplift performance. 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)
Backfill
H=3m
25 25
London
Clay
B=1.45m
2.5m
Figure 3: L4M foundation Figure 4: Construction of an L4M foundation
Depth (m)
0-3m = Type 2
-2 3-10m+ = London clay -2
-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 1960s (Parr and Vanner, 1962) varying uplift velocities and Foundation 1
and is the source of the uncertainty displacements. A design test to BS Foundation 2
surrounding the in service uplift EN61773:1996 (BSI, 1996) was also -2
performance of transmission pylon carried out to provide design test
foundations. results for the L4M foundation type.
Load was applied to each -4
3. Field tests foundation stubs using an inclined
3.1 Site layout and load schedule hydraulic jack (Figure 4). The load-
Five foundations were constructed at displacement behaviour of the -6
the Building Research Establishment foundations was measured using
London clay test site at Lodge Hill a load cell mounted above the
Camp in Chattenden during August hydraulic jack and linear voltage
-8
2009. The foundations were designed displacement transducers (LVDTs)
and constructed to TS 3.04.15 on a reference beam.
(National Grid, 2004) with uplift
capacities of 420kN. 3.2 Ground conditions -10
To determine whether suctions Chattenden has been used
occurred at field scale the extensively for foundation testing Figure 8: Pore water pressure through backfills and in situ clay
foundations were installed with due to its deep (~30m) and uniform
different base contact conditions, London clay strata. Testing was water at the base of the excavations the same loss in strength was not
backfill material and uplifted at conducted over two weeks in July in combination with the rapid uplift experienced in the London clay
different velocities to w/B = 10% 2012. Due to wet weather in the velocities was expected to result in backfills.
(150mm). Two foundations were weeks prior to testing the top layer the development of an undrained The inferred values of undrained
backfilled with compacted or loose of weathered clay became soft condition (suctions) on the base of shear strength (su) and density ()
London clay representing early requiring remediation with 40t of the foundations. of the London clay corroborated
construction practices (Parr and stone. The inundation of water in the with previous observations (Butcher
Vanner, 1962). The remaining Five 10m deep cone penetration compacted Type 2 granular backfills et al., 2008). A summary of the
foundations used compacted Type tests (CPTs) were used to appears to have caused a significant in situ values from the CPTs at
2 a coarse granular material from characterise the site and backfills. loss in strength resulting in very low Footing 5 is presented in Table 4.
recycled aggregate (Department of The measurements of pore water penetration resistances (Figures These values were used for a set of
Transport, 2009) and represented pressure from the CPTs through the 6 and 7). The low strength of the effective and total numerical back-
current practice. backfills confirmed that water had granular backfill contrasts with the analysis studies.
The load schedule in Table 3, significantly infiltrated the voids relatively stiff and homogeneous in Table 5 presents a summary of the
in combination with the different in the London clay and Type 2 situ London clay. The CPT results record uplift resistances (Q). Only
forms of construction, allowed backfills (Figure 8). The pooling of from Foundations 1 suggested the rapidly loaded foundations on
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
600 500
Uplift resistance (kN), applied load (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.