ISBN 978-0-620-44584-9

Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering

c 2009 SAIEE, Innes House, Johannesburg
Copyright

ON THE TOWER FOOTING RESISTANCE OF MICROPILE ANCHORS

1

P H Pretorius1*, C J Semmelink1
Trans-Africa Projects, P O Box 6583, Halfway House, Midrand 1685, South Africa.
*Email: pieter@taprojects.co.za

Abstract: The lightning performance of an overhead power line is one design aspect that
needs to be addressed in the overall electrical reliability of the line. A family of new
towers for high power transmission lines, constrained by servitude availability, is
currently being developed in South Africa. High reliability requirements by the client
demands specific attention and focus on lightning performance of the line.
This paper addresses specific aspects considered in the application of new micropile
technology applied as anchors for the towers. Although anchors demand mechanical
considerations relating to the high voltage structure, its electrical characteristics and
performance are also important design considerations in view of the lightning
performance of the line.
This paper addresses the electrical performance of the micropiles in various soil
conditions by means of a software model and compared with measurements. Particular
attention is given to the tower footing resistance presented by the micropiles considering
the various soil conditions modeled.
1.

INTRODUCTION

pad is 2,6 m below the surface and the size of the

excavation is 2,6 m x 6,8 m x 6,8 m = 120,.2 m3.
The reinforcing steel and concrete required were
1,303 kg and 23 m3 respectively.

The lightning performance of an overhead power line

is one design aspect that needs to be addressed in the
overall electrical reliability of the line [1]. A family of
new towers for high power transmission lines,
constrained by servitude availability, is currently being
developed in South Africa. High reliability
requirements by the client demand specific attention
and focus on lightning performance of the line.

600

1950

600

400

2600

This paper addresses specific aspects considered in the

application of new micropile technology applied as
anchors for the towers. Although anchors demand
mechanical considerations relating to the high voltage
structure, its electrical characteristics and performance
are also important design considerations in view of the
overall lightning performance of the line.

400

3000
6800

6800
3000

Figure 1: Typical Pad and Column Foundation

(Dimensions in mm).

This paper addresses the electrical performance of

the micropiles in various soil conditions by means
of a software model (CDEGS) and compared with
measurements.

2.2 Micropile Anchors

Micropile anchors make use of the concept of
anchoring or supporting the pile cap at a much
greater depth than standard foundations. This
increases the friction cone, that is much larger in
size compared to that of standard foundations.
The pile cap forms the transition between the
micropiles and the tower itself. Here, the
compression and uplift forces are transfered by
the tower leg stub to the micropiles. Force transfer
is achieved by the anchor plates fastened to the
top of each micropile by means of large spherical
nuts (Figure 2 and 5). Transverse and longitudinal
forces are partly absorbed by some of the

2. ANCHOR TECHNOLOGY
2.1 Conventional Approach
The conventional way of anchoring a transmission
line tower is by Pad and Column Foundations
which are large in size in order to prevent the
tower from being uplifted. A typical foundation is
illustrated in Figure 1. This foundation was for a
701G tower and Type 3 Soil. The depth of the

Pg. 1

Paper G-34

Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering

c 2009 SAIEE, Innes House, Johannesburg
Copyright

ISBN 978-0-620-44584-9

micropiles being placed at an angle. Vertical and

shear force resistance of the soil work against the
pile cap (Figure 3 and 4) [2].
Following construction, the micropiles extend
well into the pile cap reinforcing (Figure 6).

Figure 5: Typical installation of Piles showing the

anchor plates.

MAIN

UPLIFT OR
COMPRESSION FORCE

Figure 2: Close-up of micropile anchor plate with

spherical nuts and threaded hollow drill / anchor bar
(Bar diameter is 52 mm).

LEG

BRACING
COMPONENT FORCES

PILE CAP
HORISONTAL BRACING AND LEG
FORCES IS
TRANSFERRED TO SHEAR AND BENDING
FORCES IN THE PILE COUNTERED BY
THE SOIL RESISTANCE

GROUND LEVEL

Figure 6: Reinforcing in Pile Cap showing tower leg

stub and top sections of micropiles.

3. TOWER FOOTING RESISTANCE

3.1

PILES

PILES

UPLIFT OR COMPRESSION
FORCES IS RESISTED BY
THE FRICTION OF THE
PILES

Measured Tower Footing Resistances

In order to obtain a reference for tower footing

resistance presented by micropile anchors, tower
footing resistances were measured at three typical
installations where towers have not yet been erected
(Majuba - Umfolozi 765 kV line). Examples of
standard foundations and micropiles of towers selected
for the tower footing resistance measurement and
comparison are noted in Figure 7 (a) and (b). For
purposes of comparison, the tower footing resistances
presented by conventional foundations (on the same
line) have been measured. The tower numbers were
selected in close proximity to each other to ensure
possible similar soil conditions. Soil resistivity surveys
were conducted to confirm the soil structure in the
vicinity of the various towers noted. A summary of
these tower footing resistances noted, is presented in
Table 1 below.

Figure 3: Pile and Cap Foundation [2].

Figure 4: Rock Anchor Foundation [2].

Pg. 2

Paper G-34

Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering

c 2009 SAIEE, Innes House, Johannesburg
Copyright

ISBN 978-0-620-44584-9

(the Pile Cap), with resistivity ranging from 50 100

.m, in contact with low soil resistivity as noted
above, explains the low footing resistances presented
by the micropile anchors and conventional foundation
(Table 1).

(a)

Figure 8: Apparent soil resistivity based on the

soil resistivity measurements performed.

(b)

Table 2: Soil structure presented by the soil

resistivity measurement.
Layer
Resistivity
Thickness
Number
(Ohm.m)
(m)
1
435.1
1.2
2
107.5
3.1
3
43.9
2.3
4
101.9
infinite

Figure 7: Examples of the standard foundation (a) and

pile cap (b) of the Towers selected for the tower
footing resistance measurements.

Table 1: Summary of tower footing resistances

measured.
Type

Tower No

Resistance (Ohm)

Conventional Foundation

297

1.7

(Pad and plinth)

298

1.8

299

1.6

300

1.6

327

1.6

328

1.3

329

3.5

Micro Pile Anchor

PILE CAP

The data presented in Table 1 shows tower footing

resistances of the same order of magnitude for the two
technologies in the similar soil structure. The soil
model compiled with CDEGS (RESAP module) is
presented in Figure 8 and Table 2. The soil model is
effectively a two layer soil with top layer resistivity of
435 .m and lower layers abot 100 .m (Average =
172 .m).

Figure 9: Schematic illustration of Pile Cap detail.

3.2

Modelled Tower Footing Resistance

An illustration of the micropile anchor modelled (with

CDEGS MALZ module) is indicated in Figure 10
(See also Appendix A). By varying the resitivity of the
pile cap (Pile Cap), those of the piles (Pile) and the soil
(Soil), it was possible to determine and confirm the

It is clear from Table 2 and Figure 9, that the Pile Cap,

about 1 m embedded into the soil, may well be in
contact with the lower soil resistivity (108 ) of layer
No 2 and deeper. The hygroscopic nature of concrete

Pg. 3

Paper G-34

Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering

c 2009 SAIEE, Innes House, Johannesburg
Copyright

ISBN 978-0-620-44584-9

footing resistance presented by the micropile anchors

as noted from the measured results (Table 1).

.m and Soil = 95 .m), are in good agreement with

that measured: 1,6 3,5 (Table 1).
Even under poor soil conditions (high soil resistivity of
1,005 .m), the tower footing resistance (44 46 )
presented by the micropile system, is less than, for
example, the nominal footing resistance of 50 for a
765 kV power line tower, required from a lightning
performance perspective [2].

1,500

1,500

1,000

Pile Cap
52 x 13,000

1,000

100 x 100 x 12,600

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Pile

The footing resistance presented by new micropile

technology, applied as anchors for overhead power line
towers, has been discussed in this paper.
A software model has been developed to study the
resistance presented by a micropile anchor under
different soil conditions. The good agreement obtained
between the measurements and the model, instills
confidence in the approach followed.

Soil

The model can be applied in power line design to study

or improve tower footing resistance in the context of
lightning performance of overhead power lines.
The model suggests that micropile anchors may be an
attractive solution to reduce tower footing resistance,
even under poor soil solutions, for 765 kV lines.
Application of micropile technology, in this context,
should be confirmed by measurement.

Figure 10: Micropile anchor modelled (with CDEGS

MALZ).
The Footing Resistance presented by the micropile for
various soil resistivities are indicated in Table 3. With
some uncertainty to the resistivity presented by the
slurry applied in the micropiling, values of 100 .m,
500 .m and 1,000 .m were used. The assumption is,
based on its hygroscopic nature, that the pile resistivity
is similar to concrete.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Eskoms Sustainability and Innovation Department is
acknowledged and thanked for supporting and funding
this work.

Table 3: Footing resistance presented by the micropile

for various soil resistivities.
Soil
(.m)
95
95
95
172
172
172
495
495
495
1,005
1,005
1,005

Pile Cap
(.m)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Pile
(.m)
100
500
1,000
100
500
1,000
100
500
1,000
100
500
1,000

Apparent Footing
Resistance ()
4,4
5,3
6,2
7,8
8,6
9,6
21,9
22,7
23,7
44,1
44,9
45,9

REFERENCES

Values close to the pile resistivity (95 .m, 495 .m

and 1,005 .m) were used for the soil resistivity. The
slight difference was required by the software (native
soil volume to differ from heterogeneous finite
volume).

[1]

IEEE 1243, IEEE Guide for Improving the

Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines,
1997.

[2]

Eskom, The Planning, Design and Construction

of Overhead Power Lines 132 kV and Above,
Crown Publications, ISBN 9780620330428, Feb
2005.

APPENDIX A
A summary of the micropile anchors and tower
numbers studied are presented below.

The footing resistance of 4,4 , based on the low

resistivity values noted (Pile Cap= 100 .m, Pile = 100

Pg. 4

Paper G-34

Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering

c 2009 SAIEE, Innes House, Johannesburg
Copyright

ISBN 978-0-620-44584-9

SUMMARY
Tower
Date
9/9/2008
9/9/2008
9/9/2008
9/10/2008
9/9/2008
9/10/2008
9/9/2008
9/10/2008

327
Pile #
Depth
1
13.50
2
14.50
3
14.00
4
13.50
5
14.50
6
13.00
7
14.50
8
14.00
Totals
111.50
Average pkts per m drilled

Tower
Date
9/12/2008
9/12/2008
9/11/2008
9/11/2008
9/11/2008
9/12/2008
9/12/2008
9/11/2008
9/11/2008
9/12/2008
9/12/2008
9/11/2008
9/10/2008
9/11/2008
9/11/2008
9/10/2008

328
Pile #
Depth
1
13.00
2
13.00
3
13.00
4
13.00
5
13.00
6
13.00
7
13.00
8
13.00
9
13.00
10
13.00
11
13.00
12
13.00
13
13.00
14
13.00
15
13.00
16
13.00
Totals
208.00
Average pkts per m drilled

Tower
Date
9/13/2008
9/13/2008
9/13/2008
9/13/2008
9/13/2008
9/13/2008
9/13/2008
9/13/2008

Cement
18
23
31
18
26
19
18
20
173
1.55

Cement
18
26
19
18
16
20
16
17
21
21
19
18
18
20
18
20
305
1.47

Tower
Date
9/16/2008
9/16/2008
9/16/2008
9/18/2008
9/18/2008
9/18/2008
9/17/2008
9/17/2008
9/17/2008
9/17/2008
9/17/2008
9/17/2008

356
Pile #
Depth
1
12.00
2
12.00
3
12.00
4
12.00
5
12.00
6
12.00
7
12.00
8
12.00
9
12.00
10
12.00
11
12.00
12
12.00
Totals
144.00
Average pkts per m drilled

Cement
21
18
19
17
22
18
20
19
26
18
17
21
236
1.64

329

Pile #
Depth
1
13.00
2
13.00
3
13.00
4
13.00
5
13.00
6
13.00
7
13.00
8
13.00
Totals
104.00
Average pkts per m drilled

Cement
21
19
17
26
26
16
18
20
163
1.57

Pg. 5

Paper G-34