USING LEAN SIX SIGMA TO IMPROVE QUALITY AND REDUCE INSPECTION

OF TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION

A Project

Presented

to the Faculty o f

California State University Dominguez Hills

In Partial Fulfillment

o f the Requirements for the Degree

Master o f Science

in

Quality Assurance

by

Thomas D. Langston

Summer 2015
 ProQuest Number: 1581813

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

Que
ProQuest
ProQuest 1581813

Published by ProQuest LLC(2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 Copyright by

THOMAS D. LANGSTON

2015

All Rights Reserved

This Project is dedicated to Dan Holzer and my amazing wife, Cindy Langston.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

COPYRIGHT PA G E.................................................................................................................... ii

APPROVAL PA G E..................................................................................................................... iii

DEDICATION.............................................................................................................................. iv

TABLE OF C O N TEN TS.............................................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIG U RES................................................................................................................... viii

A B STR A C T................................................................................................................................. ix

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1

Background........................................................................................................................ 1
Statement o f the Problem.................................................................................................4
Purpose o f the Study........................................................................................................ 4
Theoretical Basis for the Study....................................................................................... 5
Limitations o f the S tudy..................................................................................................6

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................................................. 8

Quality Practices in Construction...................................................................................8

Quality Practices in the Energy Industry.......................................................................9
BPA Quality C ontrol..................................................................................................... 11
BPA Foundation Construction M ethods...................................................................... 11
Quality Control Philosophy...........................................................................................13
Application o f Theoretical Concepts........................................................................... 14

3. M ETHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 16

Design o f Investigation.................................................................................................. 16
Population........................................................................................................................ 17
Treatment......................................................................................................................... 17
Data Analysis...................................................................................................................18

v
CHAPTER PAGE

Measure Stage o f DMAIC Process...........................................................................20

Analyze Stage o f DMAIC P rocess...........................................................................22
Improve Stage o f DMAIC Process...........................................................................22
Control Stage o f DMAIC P rocess............................................................................24
Document C ontrol...................................................................................................... 25

4. RESULTS................................................................................................................................ 27

Test for Statistical Significance....................................................................................30

Additional Observations................................................................................................30

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................32

Significance o f the Study.............................................................................................. 32

Future Investigations..................................................................................................... 33

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 34

APPENDICES............................................................................................................................. 38

A: TOWER FOOTING INSTALLATION AND

INSPECTION HAND BO O K ................................................................................. 39
B: PROJECT CHARTER............................................................................................. 64
C: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS D A T A ..................................................................... 71
 LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

1. First Sample R esults............................................................................................................... 19

2. Second Sample Results...........................................................................................................19

3. Field Observations.................................................................................................................. 20

4. Error Rate................................................................................................................................. 20

5. Field Observations After Improvement............................................................................... 29

 LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

1. Error Type Histogram.............................................................................................................21

2. Error Rate Graph......................................................................................................................21

3. Tower Footing Installation and Inspection Process M a p ..................................................28

 ABSTRACT

Construction errors are a serious threat to lattice steel tower structural stability.

Previous research has identified many design and engineering problems, however,

foundation installation errors remain a significant issue. This project investigates the

use o f Lean Six Sigma as a method o f reducing the error rate in tower foundation

construction. The design o f the project follows the Six Sigma DMAIC methodology

and the Lean theory o f waste reduction with a foundation installation manual as the end

product. The manual contains procedures and formulas for tower foundation

installation. The results o f the project showed a significant reduction in the error rate o f

foundation installation after distribution and implementation o f the installation manual.

 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background

Since September 11, 2001, there has been much discussion o f terrorist plans and

the resulting destruction the country could endure. In particular, the security and

reliability o f the Nation’s electric power grid are often a primary concern. While terrorist

events receive national attention, there are other more significant threats to the free

flowing supply o f electricity in the United States and around the world.

In order to clearly recognize the threats to the national power supply, one must

understand where electricity is generated and how it gets to the end user. Electricity is

created in bulk at hydroelectric dams, wind farms and generating plants that are usually

located near the natural resources used to produce the electricity. The power generated

must be transmitted from the source to the local utility company for distribution to

homes and businesses. Electricity transmission occurs on high-voltage power lines

carried atop transmission line towers or poles. The transmission lines connect utility

substations and generating plants, forming a grid across the country allowing electricity

from multiple sources to be available at several sites to meet the local demand. This

assortment o f interconnected substations and transmission lines is known as the power

grid.

Generating stations and transmission lines bring electric power to the people, but

what are the quality aspects o f electricity? In their 2013 customer satisfaction study, JD
 2

Power (2013) reported reliability and cost are among the most important factors

determining electric customers’ satisfaction. Reliability can be defined as it relates to

electrical service in many ways, but from a customer service standpoint, reliability

means an uninterrupted supply o f electricity available when needed. In the field o f

electronics, electrical reliability is defined as electrical parts performing as designed

under set conditions for a specific amount o f time. Both definitions can be applied to the

transmission line and bulk electric supply reliability. In fact, performance o f the

individual parts o f a transmission line will, in part, determine the reliability o f the entire

system.

High-voltage transmission line towers comprise one category o f components that

make up the power grid. Towers hold the wires that allow the transmission o f electricity

and keep the wires located safely above the people and objects they might endanger.

Tower failures result in damage to property, disruption o f service, as well as the

potential for human injury and death. When failures occur, they can be attributed to

several types o f causes including structural, environmental or weather related, and

sometimes geological failures. The causes o f tower failure often relate to issues such as

poor design, unusual or extreme loading, or construction errors.

A common type o f transmission tower is the lattice steel tower. Lattice steel

towers are used for electrical transmission, as well as communications mediums such as

cellular and broadcast antennas. Davies (2011) studied ninty-six broadcast tower failure

events between 1960 and 2010 and found the number one cause o f failure to be

construction errors at 31%, followed by ice at 29%, and wind at 19%.

 3

Newly designed lattice steel towers are proof tested before entering into active

service. The proof test consists o f full-scale construction o f a tower design and load

testing to the point o f failure. Proof testing is common for transmission line towers but

has limitations. According to Paiva, Henriques, & Barros (2013) proof testing does not

reveal “if the foundations are less adequate than ideal” (p.l).

Lattice steel tower foundations are “designed to resist uplift, lateral and

downward forces arising from the weight o f the tower, and the tension within the

conductor wires and wind loading” (Richards, White & Lehane, 2010, p.413).

Geological conditions created during construction such as poor backfill, lack o f adequate

compaction, or poor placement can cause foundation displacement. In a study o f high-

voltage transmission tower foundation failures, Shu, Yuan, Guo, and Zhang (2012)

found “Under complex foundation displacement conditions, horizontal foundation

displacement is a key factor leading to failure in the stability o f towers” (p. 1).

Structural issues such as metal corrosion, metal fatigue, and deficient concrete

material may also contribute to foundation failure. Drilled concrete shaft foundations are

used in transmission line construction projects, as well as bridge and high-rise building

construction, because they can carry huge vertical, lateral, and seismic loads. Drilled

shafts are often easier to install and are more economical than other foundation methods

(Hatch, 2000). During the construction o f drilled shafts Hatch (2000) stated, “despite

care and skill in construction, voids or gaps in the concrete can occur” (p.l). In a study

o f drilled shaft failures Tabsh, O ’Neill, & Nam (2005) found “the presence o f a void that

occupies 15% o f the cross-sectional area will reduce the strength o f the shaft by 19% if
 4

the void is within the concrete cover and by 22% if the void penetrates inside the core”

(p.742). Fleming, Weltman, Randolph, & Elson (1992) found drilled shaft defect rates

between 1.5% and 1.9% in samples o f 5000 and 4550 shafts respectively. In the study o f

drilled shaft defects, Fleming, Weltman, Randolph, & Elson (1992) also stated,

Due to errors in handling slurry, concrete, casings, reinforcement cages and other

factors, minor or major defects in piles can be introduced during or after pile

construction. These defects consist o f voids, honeycombing, cracks, necking,

soil/slurry inclusions, weak seams, misalignment o f steel rebar cages, and

corroded rebar (p.87).

Statement o f the Problem

Tower failure is disruptive, costly, and dangerous. The issues that lead to tower

failure are primarily due to special causes such as unusually strong wind storms, extreme

ice loading, or soil erosion. Although design engineers plan for events that could cause

failure, construction errors often remove the safety factors built into the designs. In some

circumstances, construction errors can also be a primary cause o f tower failure. The

focus o f this project is the reduction o f construction related errors.

Purpose o f the Study

The purpose o f this study is to apply Lean Six Sigma theories and tools to the

construction process for building transmission line tower foundations. Construction

errors can be reduced or eliminated by developing and implementing processes and tools

that reduce waste and increase accuracy by educating the construction crews performing
the work. Davies (2011) stated that a primary reason for construction errors is that

workers building towers must sometimes make engineering decisions, but frequently

lack the knowledge to do so. This project is intended to prevent rework, increase

productivity, reduce costs, and reduce or eliminate construction errors for transmission

line lattice steel towers. The project will accomplish the task by presenting a process

map and best practices manual in the form o f a footing setting handbook for improving

the construction quality o f transmission line tower foundations.

Theoretical Bases for the Study

The project is based on two theories o f quality assurance: Six Sigma and Lean.

Six Sigma is a quality method developed by Motorola to reduce variation in processes.

Lean is a manufacturing quality technique developed by Toyota to reduce waste in

manufacturing. Michael George (2002) published “Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six

Sigma Quality with Lean Production Speed,” the first book referring to Lean Six Sigma

and explaining how these two theories can be combined. Together, Lean and Six Sigma

have become a powerful tool to remove errors and wasted efforts from processes. Lean

Six Sigma offers a dual approach for variation reduction and provides customers with a

product that meets their needs precisely. In the construction industry, Lean Six Sigma

can improve precision and lower cost by standardizing production processes and

removing non-value-added steps.

Variation is present in all processes. There are two types o f variation: special

cause and common cause variation (Deming, 1982). Special cause variation is variation
not caused by the system or process in place. Instead, variation is caused by special

circumstances such as a new worker on site without any training, a broken instrument, or

operator error. Common cause variation is variation inherent in the system or process.

Common cause variation usually cannot be cured by the worker and must be reduced by

improvements to the process. Both types o f variation exist in construction. An example

o f common cause variation might be a foundation setting chart with error on it. System

errors or common cause variation include typing errors, measuring errors, engineering

calculation errors, or lack o f standard operating procedures. Deming stated that 85% o f

the variation in a process is due to common causes. He later amended this statement to

97% (Smith, 2009).

Using Lean Six Sigma techniques, this project identifies system flaws and

proposes methods to reduce or eliminate construction errors in the foundation building

process. With a focus on Lean, the project manual clearly presents a process containing

best practices and all the necessary steps for completing each task.

Limitations o f the Study

Numerous articles have been written about eliminating tower failures in

engineering publications. Nearly every aspect o f tower construction has been studied acid

best practices in design have been developed. Bonneville Power Administration

maintains a library at its headquarters in Portland, Oregon with an online database

containing many publications relating to design criteria. Unfortunately, the engineers

designing tower components are not the people who construct the towers. Skilled
 7

tradesmen such as linemen, surveyors, riggers, ground men, and equipment operators do

the actual construction work. While these men and women are skilled in their particular

trade, some aspects o f tower construction require many disciplines to complete. Most

projects have aspects that are unique to the organization requesting the work to be done.

For these multi-disciplinary tasks, knowledge o f other trade work and specific

information from the organization requesting the work are necessary to optimize the

result.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is a federal agency that owns and

operates over 15,000 miles o f high-voltage transmission lines across the Northwest. BPA

supplies bulk electric power to local utilities for distribution to homes and businesses.

The most prominent structures in any transmission line are the towers. Transmission line

towers are made up o f many individual parts. This project is limited to the essential

processes for installation and inspection o f transmission line lattice steel tower

foundations. Tower foundations are also referred to in the industry as tower footings. In

particular, this project is limited to tower footings used on BPA’s high-voltage

transmission lines.
 8

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Quality Practices in Construction

Al-Aomar (2012) studied twenty-eight construction projects looking for waste

that could be eliminated using Lean Six Sigma (LSS). According to Al-Aomar, LSS has

not been widely applied in the construction industry. O f the twenty-seven types o f waste

identified in the Al-Aomar study, construction errors were found to be the most common

type o f waste. Inspection is a type o f waste that can be reduced by Lean Six Sigma

methods, but Al-Aomar noted that inspection is not often recognized as waste by the

industry.

Strate and Laplante (2013) demonstrate how the software industry is using Lean

Six Sigma to reduce the need for inspection. Inspecting critical parts o f the process is

more important than continuous inspection or even random inspection. Instead, Quality

Professionals can use Lean Six Sigma to determine the most likely areas for defects and

focus on those areas for inspection. Arumugam, Antony & Douglas (2012) argue the

importance o f observation as a means o f implementing quality tools. Observation is a

social sciences tool that has direct applications to quality. Observation is also a Lean tool

because it uses very few resources but can immensely increase value. Arumugam,

Antony & Douglas performed a study and applied their observation technique at key

points with quality improvements as the goal. Using the Six Sigma methodology, the

authors reported that the critical time for observation is during the measure stage o f the
 9

Six Sigma process. Results o f the study showed that inspection can be limited without

giving up quality. Quality is maintained by timing inspections to critical points in the

process. Rather than having full-time inspectors throughout a process, the study suggests

using workers trained to observe critical points to reduce the need for official inspection.

The study also showed that involving both workers and inspectors as observers increased

the effectiveness o f changes made by Lean Six Sigma improvements.

Total Quality Management (TQM) is another quality method used by

organizations to reduce waste, increase efficiency, and eliminate variation in their

processes. Sui and Teo (2004) studied two construction companies that implemented

TQM and the results o f those efforts. During the study, both companies benefitted from

TQM. These results were obtained through process improvement and value stream

mapping, which are also used in Lean Six Sigma. Value stream mapping is a quality tool

used to explain the steps in a process visually. Value stream mapping helps identify steps

in a process that may need improvement, or steps that can be eliminated if no value is

added. Once the steps are known, process improvements can be implemented. Some

benefits discovered by Sui and Teo included: reduction in defects, improvement in

satisfaction, and increased productivity.

Quality Practices in the Energy Industry

Quality assurance in the energy industry starts in the design o f the structures that

will be used for the project. Designs are analyzed by engineers using sophisticated

software that calculates loads, structure size needs, and failure analysis. “The design
 10

objective for lattice towers is to fulfill the stability criterion and sustainability in the

worst environmental conditions. The transmission line towers are designed against

failure containment loads comprising o f anti cascading loads and tensional and

longitudinal loads” (Ahmed & Maiti, 2012, p .l). After design, “Proof-loading or the full-

scale testing o f towers has traditionally formed an integral part o f tower design”

(Albermania, Kitipomchaib, & Chanb, 2009, p .l). Proof testing is the construction o f all

or part o f a tower design then loading to failure. The results help improve tower designs

and eliminate weak areas from the structure.

Once a design has been established, construction can begin. During a

construction project, quality assurance is often met through three phase quality control

which was developed by the U.S. Army Corps o f Engineers. Essentially, three phase

quality control requires documentation o f three meetings for each definable feature o f

the work. The three phases and corresponding meetings are Preparatory, Initial, and

Follow-up. In each phase, workers and management review the applicable drawings and

specifications assess current progress. In the Preparatory phase, the intent is to determine

whether or not the project is ready to proceed. Answers are needed to questions such as

“are all materials received and inspected?” In the Initial phase, the meetings cover

readiness to proceed and inspection o f the first work outputs. The Follow-up phase

continues the review o f documentation and progress and determines whether or not the

product meets specification (Caldeira, 2014).

 11

BPA Quality Control

In addition to endorsing three phase quality control, BPA also subscribes to the

philosophy o f increasing inspection to improve the quality o f their construction projects.

Currently, BPA employs full-time inspectors that practice continuous inspection through

every aspect o f construction. Since 2011, BPA has required prime contractors working

on BPA projects to perform continuous inspection as well. In addition to BPA’s

inspectors, each prime contractor for BPA is required to have a quality department and

inspectors. On most BPA construction projects, there are also third party special

inspectors assigned to particular types o f work such as welding, concrete, and equipment

commissioning activities. In total, there can be more inspectors on a BPA construction

site than actual workers in some circumstances.

BPA Foundation Construction Methods

Similar projects to the Tower Footing Installation and Inspection Handbook do

exist (see Appendix A). The National Highway Institute (NHI) Drilled Shaft Foundation

Inspection Manual covers nearly every aspect o f drilled shaft foundation construction.

The NHI manual is used by installers and inspectors to gain knowledge and practical

advice on the best practices and multiple methods for shaft construction; however, the

manual does not contain any information on placing the steel portion o f a tower footing

into a shaft foundation excavation. BPA also has a similar manual called the

Transmission Line and Substation Construction Inspection Manual. The BPA manual

covers all aspects o f transmission line construction, but does not go into detail on every
 12

aspect. The manual also does not include the methods and calculations necessary for

installers or inspectors to create the construction dimensions necessary for accurate

footing placement. Information isolation has been observed in many different industries,

and was specifically addressed in an article by Shuang et al. (2009). The article describes

a study conducted in the fast growing shipbuilding industry in China and how

departments that keep information from other stakeholders in the project increase the

overall cost and reduce productivity. Conversely, the article shows how process mapping

and wide distribution o f the process can have dramatic effects on cost reduction and

productivity increases.

This project is the first step in sharing information and reducing variation in the

footing setting process by standardizing the process o f footing installation and offering

methods, calculations, and best practices. Mapping and standardizing the process will

reduce the need for inspection, while empowering workers to create a higher quality

product. Moon (2013) indicates that inspection is not necessarily a good way to ensure a

quality end product. Moon demonstrates that inspection may miss several opportunities

for improvement when used as the sole means o f quality control. Instead o f inspection,

Moon recommends using dynamic quality control and using the workers performing the

tasks as the first line o f defense against defects. The footing setting handbook in

Appendix A gives footing workers the tools not available elsewhere that they need to

implement quality changes that benefit BPA, its stakeholders and the contractors

building new power lines.

 13

Quality Control Philosophy

W. Edwards Deming is credited with starting the quality revolution in Japan in

the 1950s and bringing modem quality theories and methods to the United States.

Although Deming preached that quality could not be inspected into a product, some

organizations respond to quality issues by increasing inspection. The theory behind

increased inspection is that catching flaws gives the organization a chance to fix them

before they get to the customer. Deming’s response was that quality should be built into

the product rather than an afterthought caught by inspection (Deming, 1982).

The Deming philosophy for building quality into a product consists o f

organizational changes that improve systems and processes to remove variation. Deming

firmly believed that variation must be understood as having two separate causes, only

one o f which can be corrected by the worker. The most prominent cause o f variation,

consisting o f approximately 85% o f errors, is the process workers must follow to

produce their work. In many instances, management supplies the tools and procedures

while the workers only carryout the work. In cases where employees are not allowed to

adjust the procedures or process, errors and variation can only be reduced by

management. Inspection may reveal flaws caused by variation, but it is not a cure for the

problem (Deming, 1993).

The goal o f a Lean Six Sigma project is to reduce variation, the cause o f

defective products. The methods used to reduce variation include reduction o f waste in

every aspect o f the process. Several benefits can be realized when waste and defects are

reduced or eliminated. Those benefits include higher profits through efficiency gains,
 14

increased job satisfaction, and higher morale. Reducing variation also reduces the need

for continuous inspection thus lowering costs.

Application o f Theoretical Concepts

The book Lean Thinking suggests that value should be derived from the

customer’s point o f view (George, Rowlands & Kastle, 2004). The end user o f the

system o f electrical transmission, homeowners and business owners, care most about

reliability and cost (JD Power, 2013). The immediate customer o f the footing setting

crew is BPA. BPA also greatly values reliability and cost. The element that has the

greatest influence on reliability and cost, with regard to transmission line tower footing

installation, is accuracy o f location. The accurate placement o f the footing allows

construction o f the rest o f the tower to the specified tolerances without additional

stresses not accounted for in the design. Because all tower parts are pre-made and only

assembled on site, significant footing location inaccuracies will prevent further

construction and immediately require rework. Minor location inaccuracies are much

more dangerous because they can induce stresses in other parts o f the tower, creating the

potential for failure o f the structure.

Cooper and Moore (2013) describe how a process map is constructed and explain

the parts o f the map. The chemical industry uses process maps to create a comprehensive

overview o f the work. The map is then used to determine the most logical place for

measurements and data collection. Mapping the process also suggests where

improvements can be made and waste removed. A key point in the article is that the
 15

process map allows people to understand the relationships between steps. One o f the

deliverables created by this project is a process map for footing installation. The process

map gives a visual demonstration o f the value created for the customer as it flows

through the process. The map distinguishes inspection points allowing inspection as

needed rather than continuously. Distribution o f the process map to those involved with

footing setting prevents information isolation and reduces variation by offering a set way

o f creating the end product for the customer.

 16

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

O f all aspects involved with transmission tower construction, footing installation

is known to be one o f the least understood and most problem-prone processes. Engineers

have designed, modeled and tested tower footings. All existing towers are set on some

type o f footing, but formal documentation o f the process for installing these structures is

not readily available. The documentation provided to the installers is accurate but does

not explain exactly how the information should be used. Very tight tolerances have been

developed and implemented for tower footing setting. To complicate the setting process

even further, the footing process contains seven individual elements that a footing setter

must meet in order to place the footing accurately. Those elements are: elevation, plumb,

distance from tower center, distance from footing to footing, rotation o f the tower, twist

o f the footing, and the batter o f the footing angle. After reviewing documentation o f

footing setting processes, there is an apparent information gap between design

specification and the finished product. The result o f this information gap is widely

varying processes between crews. Different processes produce inconsistent results and

errors that require rework before tower construction can continue.

Design o f Investigation

To address this problem, Lean Six Sigma (LSS) was chosen as the most relevant

quality method to eliminate issues involved with tower footing installation. LSS is
 17

concerned with removing variation from processes, as well as removing unnecessary or

wasteful steps in a process to improve quality. The methodology used for this project

follows the Six Sigma process o f Defme-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control (DMAIC).

The project also draws on the Lean methodology o f waste reduction and specific written

process development. A project charter listing the project background, objectives,

stakeholders, and deliverables was written and is included in Appendix B.

Population

During the 2014 construction season at BP A, there were several construction

projects underway. The largest transmission line project, consisting o f forty miles o f new

construction, was chosen by BPA management and was examined for the purposes o f

this paper. The transmission line under construction was made up o f lattice steel towers

and footings typical o f BPA projects. The Prime Contractor had hired a specialized firm

as a sub-contractor to install footings ahead o f the crews building the transmission line

towers. The footing contractor assembled two crews consisting o f ground men,

operators, and one footing setter for each crew. Together, the crews averaged completion

o f four footings at one site for each day worked. Sample data was taken over a random

two-week period for the initial assessment and again over another random two-week

period after changes were implemented.

Treatment

During the Define stage o f the DMAIC process, the Lean Six Sigma team sought

to discover if the chosen construction project needed improvement, and if so, what
 18

would be the best way to improve results. Once the Lean Six Sigma team was on site in

early June, 2014, a schedule for random sampling was chosen. The team decided to

examine every footing installation performed during the two-week period. During the

first two-week sample period, ten tower sites were visited during and after the footings

were installed. During installation, site data, crew notes and field calculations were

collected. After installation at each tower site, measurements were taken and compared

to the site data provided by BPA and to the tolerances defined in the construction

documents.

Through examination o f field notes recorded by the installation crews and site

data supplied by BPA, several issues were determined to have contributed to the high

error rates o f footing installation. The primary issue observed in the field notes was a

lack o f standard methods for calculating field measurements for construction dimensions

used in placing the footing. A second issue found in the documentation was a lack o f

double check o f the field calculations for errors. Another issue that contributed to the

error rates was the use o f incorrect data for the site specified by BPA.

Data Analysis

Each o f the ten sites visited consisted o f four footing installations or processes.

Each footing process consisted o f seven measurable operations. Each operation was

examined for conformance to the specifications. Non-conforming operations in the first

sample period were recorded as errors shown in Table 1. Recorded errors in the second
 19

sample are presented in Table 2. The mean number o f errors for each sample was also

calculated to aid in statistical analysis.

Table 1

First Sample Results

40 Processes sampled with 0 to 7 possible errors per process

0 0 0 2 0
1 0 0 0 3
1 0 0 4 0
0 0 0 3 1
1 1 3 0 0
0 3 2 0 4
1 0 4 0 0
2 0 2 0 1
Sum 39
Mean 0.975

Table 2

Second Sample Results

40 Processes sampled with 0 to 7 possible errors per process

0 0 3 0 0
1 0 3 0 0
0 0 2 0 0
0 0 2 0 1
1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Sum 13
Mean 0.325
 20

Measure Stage o f DMAIC Process

Compiled field observation data is shown in Table 3 and error rates are displayed

in Table 4. During the initial observation period, 39 operation errors were documented

out o f 280 operations total. At least one error was found in 70% o f observed tower sites,

and errors were found in 14% o f the operations performed. The histogram in Figure 1

and graph in Figure 2 display the types o f errors and related percentages.

Table 3

Field Observations

Sites 10
Processes observed 40
Operations per process 7
Total operations observed 280
Total errors observed 39

Tower Sites with errors 7/10 70%

Operations with errors 39/280 14%

Table 4

Error Rate

Class Frequency Cum ulative Cum. Freq. P ercen tag e

Frequency Relative

Calculation error 15 16 =15/39=0.38 38%

Place/M easure error 13 30 =13/39=0.33 33%
Documentation error 8 39 =8/39=0.21 21%
Excavation error 1 17 =1/39=0.03 3%
Chart data error 1 1 =l/39=.03 3%
Backfill error 1 31 =1/39=0.03 3%
Survey error 0 0 =0/39=0.00 0%
 21

Figure 1. Error Type Histogram.

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20 %
15%

10%
5%

0%
Calculation P lace/M easu re D ocum entation Excavation C hart d a ta Backfill e rro r
e rro r e rro r e rro r e rro r erro r

Figure 2. Error Rate Graph.

 22

Analyze Stage o f DMAIC Process

The analyze stage o f DMAIC seeks to determine the cause o f the discovered

problem so that selected solutions can be determined to eliminate the problem in its

entirety. Root cause analysis can take many forms such as Change Analysis, Tree

Diagrams, or a Cause-and-Effect diagram, also know as a Fishbone or Ishikawa

Diagram. The Lean Six Sigma Team used these tools to examine the contributing factors

to errors found in the footing setting process. The team found the root causes to be:

1) No standardized procedures for each operation in a process.

2) Lack o f procedural knowledge.

3) Field calculations and measurements were not cross-checked.

4) No documentation standard for completion o f tasks.

Improve Stage o f DMAIC process

The measurement and analysis phases o f the DMAIC process for this project

revealed such a high error rate in the studied construction project that the prime

contractor issued a stop work order until improvements to the footing process could be

determined, documented, and approved. The improve stage consisted o f the footing sub­

contractor benchmarking other projects and examining their processes for suggestions to

the problems.

The Lean Six Sigma team chose to address the issues discovered in the analyze

stage o f the DMAIC process by creating a step by step procedure manual and process

map. The footing setting handbook, attached in Appendix A, is the result o f those
 23

efforts. The handbook is a compilation o f the relevant information gleaned from field

notes and documents created during previous construction projects at BPA. The

handbook is intended to address the issue o f information isolation by spreading

knowledge o f the process to all involved with footing setting. The information in the

handbook also gives workers the knowledge to make informed decisions regarding

methods to solve field problems and an accepted way o f documenting progress and

completed installation o f footings.

Creating the Footing Setting Handbook. The footing setting handbook created for

this project is intended to address several issues associated with footing errors. Since a

primary cause o f footing installation errors has been determined to be a lack o f standard

methods for calculating field measurements, the Lean Six Sigma team sought to

document a procedure for performing field calculations that had been used on prior BPA

footing installations with success. Field notes and inspector records from footing

installations known to be in service and error free were gathered and mined fo r footing

installation process notes by the team. The process found in Appendix A, the Footing

Setting Handbook, is the result o f that effort. The process in the Footing Setting

Handbook includes sections on survey, excavation, placement, backfill, and location

verification, but focuses on field calculations. Since information on processes other than

field calculations can be obtained in materials already available to installation crews the

Footing Setting Handbook only covers those aspects for reference.

The issues o f incorrect data use in the field and lack o f double checks are also

addressed in the Footing Setting Handbook. The Footing Setting Handbook gives
 24

specific examples o f the necessary data footing crews must use to correctly calculate

field measurements. This data is provided by BPA engineers, but the installers need to

be aware o f its purpose and how to convert it to useful information. The Lean Six Sigma

team also included in the Footing Setting Handbook a section specifically offering

alternate methods o f performing the calculations. This is included to give crews options

for double checking themselves as well as options for outside verification o f their

calculations. Together, the sections included in the Footing Setting Handbook address all

o f the primary causes o f errors found in the construction project used for the project.

Control Stage o f DMAIC process

Procedures were developed and written in the Footing Setting Handbook for the

most error prone processes focusing on documentation standards, placement and

measurement procedures, and standard methods for field calculations. The improved

procedures for each process and operation were fully put into practice. The information

needed for all processes was distributed to all members o f each crew as well as the

onsite inspection team. In addition to the process tools implemented for improvement,

additional work tools including laser levels were purchased and placed into service.

Although the computer program for footing setting calculations was considered, the cost

o f the program proved to be prohibitive in light o f the results from less expensive

solutions available.

The Lean Six Sigma team continued to visit the construction project as part o f

the quality controls. The team reviewed inspection records and as-built documentation
 25

for footings installed through the end o f 2014. A primary control for this project was

training on the information in the Footing Setting Handbook for all inspection staff at the

construction site. This control allowed the Six Sigma team to rely on the inspectors’

expertise and attentiveness to the footings installed. The inspection staff was able to

review and adjust the installation process used by the crews on a daily basis.

Document Control

The footing setting handbook attached in Appendix A was compiled from

information recorded in field notes, inspection records and construction data information

retained from previous construction projects completed by BPA and stored in their

Construction Administration Information System (CAIS). Since BPA did not have a

document specific to footing setting field calculation before the footing setting handbook

was created, the handbook in Appendix A is the first o f its kind. After the initial draft o f

the footing setting handbook had been completed, copies were reviewed and approved

by subject matter experts at BPA. The first draft was also reviewed by outside experts

for accuracy. After review, the BPA Construction Management and Inspection

department manager approved the release o f the document for the purposes o f this

project. The footing setting handbook master document is stored in CAIS. Access to the

document is allowed by the site administrator and granted to all involved with BPA

contract construction. Revisions to the document should follow the same document

control procedures already in place for other BPA materials. Revisions require subject
 26

matter expert review and acceptance by the process owner, the BPA Construction

Management and Inspection department manager.

 27

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Until this project, BPA did not have a written process map for footing setting or

footing inspection. The lack o f a clear process map and standard procedures has led to an

unavailability o f information about footing setting to some workers who may need the

information. In particular, the contracted firm’s quality control representatives often lack

the knowledge necessary for footing setting inspection. BPA’s full-time footing

inspectors have the knowledge, but in the past that knowledge has been passed person to

person rather than through formal training and written instruction.

The process map developed for footing setting and shown in Figure 3 describes

the necessary steps and the decisions needed for successful footing installation. The

simple seven-step process eliminated wasted steps from the process and allowed for

installation time to be decreased.

 28

A rrive on site

V erify survey
information

No
O rder
OK?
New

Yes

Start field
calculations
No

Finish depth o f
Finish all A gree with
excavation
calculations inspector
calculation

Start Excavation Yes

Finish Excavation

Start footing
placem ent

No

M easure against W ithin

tolerances Spec?

Yes

No
Pass
Inspection

Yes
Backfill

Create A s-built

Figure 3. Tower Footing Installation and Inspection Process Map.

 29

Once all members o f the footing crew were thoroughly trained on the best

practices and procedures for footing installation (shown in Appendix A), a measurable

improvement was evident. A follow-up study was conducted at the same construction

site and revealed the footing installation error rates were reduced from 14% to 5% o f

operations, as shown in Table 5. Tower sites with errors and procedures with errors also

showed considerable improvement, but did not reach the goal levels stated in the project

charter. The less than ideal results were partially caused by a significant error which was

found during the follow-up study. The error was in the survey operation o f the process

for a single tower site. Survey was not a prominent problem in the initial study, and

therefore was not specifically identified by the Lean Six Sigma team for improvement,

even though it is one o f the critical operations in footing setting. The survey error caused

a cascade effect and resulted in errors in calculation, excavation, placement, and backfill

for that particular tower site.

Table 5

Field Observations After Improvement

Before After
Sites 10 10
Processes observed 40 40
Operations per process 7 7
Total operations observed 280 280
Total errors observed 39 13

Tower Sites with errors 7/10 70% 4/10 40%

Operations with errors 39/280 14% 13/280 5%
 30

Test for Statistical Significance

The construction project studied for this project was sampled on two occasions.

The first sample was taken prior to any improvements by the Lean Six Sigma team. The

second sample was taken after distribution o f the Footing Setting Handbook. The

samples were compared using a dependent t test for paired samples to determine if the

results o f the improvement efforts were statistically significant. The dependent variable

in the test is the actual number o f errors measured. The independent variables used were

the knowledge o f the work crews before and after the Footing Setting Handbook was

distributed. The test results for the comparison between before and after measurements

show a statistical significance (p = .02057) with 95% confidence. The data and statistical

analysis for the test are shown in Appendix C.

Additional Observations

Implementation o f the Lean Six Sigma solutions has resulted in increased flow

time, stakeholder satisfaction, and quality yield for the construction project studied. With

the introduction o f a computerized system for calculations, cycle time and calculation

errors could be further reduced. Since the footing setter is almost always the most

expensive employee, reducing the time required for calculations will reduce the overall

cost per footing. The high number o f required field calculations increases the

opportunity for errors when the math is performed manually. With computerized

calculations, an increase in the setter’s available time for placement activity means a

crew can increase their number o f footings installed per shift increasing the whole crews
 31

yield. It is conceivable that a single footing setter could work with two or more crews

with the help of a computer program for setting calculations, thereby at least doubling

the work output o f the setter and lowering the overall cost o f footing installation. In

addition to potential errors in field calculations, the documentation provided to the

setting crew sometimes contains typing errors or misprints. In other rare cases, charts

provided to the setting crews by engineering have been found to have errors.

Now that the process map is in place, the problem o f continuous inspection can

be addressed. Through communication and proper planning, inspection o f footing

installations can be limited to critical points in the process. For this project, BPA did not

authorize a reduction o f inspection staff, nor did they allow inspection to be reduced to

only critical times. The prime contractor for the construction project studied did

implement an inspection schedule based on critical inspection points. These

improvements allowed them to limit their staff to only two inspectors for the entire

project scope o f work.

The standardization o f work practices, process mapping, and information

distribution has increased the reliability o f the transmission system. Error rates directly

affect costs. The cost o f rework, maintenance, and failure can be mitigated by reducing

the construction error rate and minimizing time spent during construction. Stakeholder’s

second concern, reliability, can also be directly affected by implementing error rate

reduction solutions. Every process and system contains waste. The waste discovered in

the footing setting process is no different and can be reduced or eliminated if further

Lean Six Sigma solutions, such as inspection reduction, are implemented.

 32

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Significance o f the Study

The goal o f this project is to improve overall quality and reduce the need for

inspection o f transmission line tower footings. The project provides knowledge and tools

to the workers performing tower foundation construction to help them identify

deficiencies before construction, improve their work processes, and prevent errors.

The project followed the Six Sigma methodology o f DMAIC while incorporating

Lean’s emphasis on waste reduction. The results show a clear reduction in errors which

reduces the need for rework. With the reduction o f rework, which costs contractor’s

money, crews can focus on their primary purpose o f building new transmission lines.

The reduction o f wasted time and reduced costs should be reflected in the bids for future

projects, lowering overall transmission line construction costs and keeping electric rates

lower due to those savings. This results in satisfying one o f the primary stakeholder

concerns o f controlling costs.

Another primary stakeholder concern, reliability, has been addressed by this

project. Errors in construction lead to failures that create an unreliable power grid. The

reduction o f errors achieved by this project has reduced the likelihood o f failure due to

construction errors on the construction project studied. Further quality improvements can

be achieved by widespread distribution o f the tools and methodology included in this

project.
 33

Future Investigations

The methods used for improvement o f the tower foundation installation process

can be used for other aspects o f tower construction such as steel erection, wire stringing,

and wire sagging. Common cause variation could be reduced to near zero by use o f

computer calculations rather than relying on human calculation. Figure 3 illustrates the

process developed as part o f this project. The process map should be available to all

workers involved with footing setting and distributed to workers on all BPA projects that

require lattice steel tower footings. To reduce field calculations and the associated

potential errors, BPA should require contractors to use total station transits with the

ability to laser measure distances on an angle. This tool would reduce the need for many

field calculations and provide more accurate measurements on steep and difficult terrain.

BPA and its contract footing firms should also provide footing setters with a

computer program that automatically calculates field setting values using input from the

setter and the design documents provided. Microsoft Excel has been used as a platform

for programs endorsed by BPA that calculate wire sagging dimensions and a similar

program should be developed or purchased for footing calculations.

REFERENCES
 35

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S., & Maiti, P. (2012). Analysis o f lattice steel towers using STAAD Pro.

International Journal o f Applied Engineering Research, 7(10), 1123-1130.

Al-Aomar, R. (2012). A lean construction framework with six sigma rating.

International Journal o f Lean Six Sigma, 3(4), 299-314.

Albermania, F., Kitipomchaib, S., & Chanb, R. (2009). Failure analysis o f transmission

towers. Engineering Failure Analysis, 16(6), 1922-1928.

Arumugam, V., Antony, J., & Douglas, A. (2012). Observation: a Lean tool for

improving the effectiveness o f Lean Six Sigma. The TQM Journal, 24(3), 275-

287.

Caldeira, E. (2014). What are the USACE three phases o f control? First Time Quality.

Retrieved from http://www.firsttimequality.com

Cooper, T., & Moore, C. (2013). Use process mapping to improve quality. Chemical

Engineering Progress, 109(8), 45-52. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

docview/1429679273?accountid=458

Davies, D. (2011). North American tower failures: Causes and cures. [PowerPoint

slides]. Retrieved from http://c5b39bad27d9921e426b785670ce00a5fc5f9e2b.gri

pelements.com/pdf/public/dave_davies_tower_failure_handout.pdf

Deming, W. E. (1982). Out o f the crisis. (9th ed.) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
 36

Deming, W. E. (1993). The new economics for industry, government, education.

Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute o f Technology, Center for Advanced

Engineering Study.

Fleming, W.G.K., Weltman, A.J., Randolph, M.F., & Elson, W.K. (1992). Piling

engineering (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Blackie/Halsted Press, John Wiley &

Sons.

George, M. (2002). Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma quality with Lean production

speed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

George, M., Rowland, D., & Kastle, B., (2004). What is Lean Six Sigma? N ew York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hatch, S. (2000). Practical research answers real-life questions. Public Roads, 64(3), 36-

38. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/205371339?accountid=4

58

JD Power. (2013). 2013 Electric utility residential customer satisfaction study. Retrieved

from http://www.jdpower.com

Moon, S. (2013). Causality analysis for dynamic quality control in construction.

International Journal o f Engineering and Technology, 5(5), 541-545.

Paiva, F., Henriques, J., & Barros, R. C. (2013) Review o f transmission tower testing

stations around the world. Procedia Engineering, 57, 859-868.

Richards, D. J., White, D. J., & Lehane, B. M. (2010). Centrifuge modeling o f the

pushover failure o f an electricity transmission tower. Canadian Geotechnical

Journal, 47(4), 413-424.

Shu, Q., Yuan, G., Guo, G., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Limits to foundation displacement o f

an extra high-voltage transmission tower in a mining subsidence area.

International Journal o f Mining Science and Technology, 22(1), 13-18.

Shuang-liang, Y., Hong-xia, S., Pei-lan, S., & Chun-guang, L. (2009). Research on

BOM mapping transformation for ship construction process. Management

Science and Engineering, 3(3), 54-68. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com

/docview/208612866?accountid=458

Smith, L. (2009). W hat’s preventing prevent? Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 6-7.

Retrieved from http://asq.org

Strate, J. D., & Laplante, P. A. (2013). Using Lean Six Sigma to reduce effort and cost in

a software defect tracking system. Software Quality Professional, 16(1), 23-34.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.eom/docview/l 503096855?accountid=458

Sui Pheng, L., & Teo, J. (2004). Implementing Total Quality Management in

construction firms. Journal o f Management in Engineering, 20(1), 8-15.

Tabsh, S., O ’Neill, M., & Nam, M. (2005). Shear strength o f drilled shafts with minor

flaws. Engineering Structures, 27(5), 736-748.

APPENDICES
 APPENDIX A

TOWER FOOTING INSTALLATION AND

INSPECTION HANDBOOK
 40

Tower Footing Installation and

Inspection Handbook

Authorship

This document has been prepared by Thomas Langston for Bonneville Power

Administration.

Further Information

For further information about this document please contact Thomas Langston at

tdlangston@bpa.gov.

Please check the Bonneville Power Administration Construction Administration

Information System (CAIS) website for the most recent version o f this document at

https://bpa.epm-hosting.com.

Category Transmission Engineering/Construction Management and

Inspection/Lattice Steel Tower/Footing Installation

Date o f Approval July 7, 2014

Approved by Construction Management and Inspection Manager

July 2014 revOO

 41

Tower Footing Installation and

Inspection Handbook

The US Department o f Energy Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) owns

and operates high-voltage transmission lines across the Northwest, supplying bulk

electric to local utilities for distribution to homes and businesses. The electricity BPA

supplies is transmitted over power lines supported primarily by lattice steel tower

structures. Transmission line construction has divisions including road building, site

preparation, footing installation, tower construction, and wire stringing. Each o f the

work divisions have several processes that crews follow to meet the needs o f the project.

This handbook was created to map the standard process for steel tower footing

construction with a primary focus on footing setting. In addition, the handbook offers

alternate methods for calculating some o f the more difficult dimensions as well as a

preview o f a software package that can significantly reduce footing errors.

There are three major interconnected processes for footing installation:

excavation, setting, and backfill. A typical footing consists o f a base material, a large

piece o f angle iron, and the connecting hardware such as small steel plates, nuts and

bolts. Different footing types are determined by their base material. Plate footings use a

steel plate base; shaft footings have a concrete shaft base and grillage footings have a

system o f steel beams as a base. Rock footings are composed o f the angle iron placed

into concrete within a drilled hole in a rock substrate. The process for excavation

depends on the type o f base the footing will be set into. As with excavation, the backfill

July 2014 revOO

 42

process is dependent on the type o f base material for the footing. Since all types o f steel

tower footings use the same process for setting the stub angle, the scope o f this

handbook is limited to the setting process which can be used no matter which type o f

footing is installed.

Definition o f Terms

“A” distance: measurement between the tower center hub and the Working Point.

“B” distance: perpendicular measurement from the centerline between two adjacent

footings to the far side o f a stub angle.

“C” distance: measurement from the Tower Center Hub to the vertical centerline o f the

footing excavation (not a setting dimension, the “C” distance is an excavation dimension

only).

Batter: degree o f incline slope o f the stub angle expressed as a fraction or decimal per

foot o f rise.

Elevation: height above a given level such as sea level or the tower center hub. See also

Working Point Elevation.

Footing: the lowest steel section o f a transmission line tower leg composed o f the stub

angle and any base material.

Footing Stub: steel angle portion o f the footing (excludes the base material or plate).

July 2014 revOO

 43

Foundation: interchangeable with footing.

Height o f Instrument (HD: Elevation o f transit above sea level.

Instrument Height (IH): Measurement from Tower Center Monument to Transit. Also

referred to as the Measure Up (MU).

Plumb: deviation or lack thereof o f the stub angle from perfectly vertical.

Rod: Height o f transit to WPE measurement.

Rotation: deviation o f the four tower leg footings as a unit from the specified orientation

clockwise or counterclockwise.

Setting: placement and locating in three dimensions o f the footing stub.

Stub angle: same as footing stub.

Tower Center Hub: Survey monument placed at the center o f tower location for a tower

site.

Twist: rotation o f the individual footing stub within the foundation either clockwise or

counterclockwise.

Working Point: point at which elevation measurements are taken for the footing. Located

at the apex o f the interior side o f the stub angle.

Working Point Elevation (WPE): height o f the working point above sea level.

July 2014 revOO

 44

Footing Setting Tolerances

The mission o f the footing crew is to place the footing stub angles accurately in

the locations specified by the transmission line design documents. Accurate placement

ensures constructability o f the tower. Accurate placement also prevents rework and

maintains the structural integrity o f the tower. Major footing location inaccuracies

prevent further construction and require immediate rework so that tower construction

may continue. Minor location inaccuracies are much more dangerous because they can

induce stresses on other parts o f the tower, creating the potential for ultimate failure.

Accurate placement is the key to footing setting success. With accuracy in mind, BPA

has developed tight tolerances for footing placement. The chart in Table A1 shows the

tolerances for each o f the seven footing setting dimensions.

Table A l.

Footing Setting Dimensions

Note. Adapted from “BPA Standard Technical Specification,” by Bonneville Power

Administration, 2009. Adapted with permission.

Footing Setting Tolerances

“A” Distance +/- 0.01 feet
“B” Distance +/- 0.007 feet Double B tolerance +/-
0.014
Elevation +/- .10 feet from WPE +/- 0.01 from other footings
Rotation 15 Minutes
Batter Maximum Deviation 1/16 inch per foot
Twist Maximum Deviation 0.01 feet in 12 inches
Plumb Maximum Deviation 0.01 feet in 12 inches

July 2014 revOO

 45

Footing Setting Process

There are three documents provided by BPA engineers that are essential for

footing setting: the tower type document (Figure A l), which contains a setting

dimension chart for that specific design (Figure A2), the Steel Tower List (Figure A3),

and the Tower Site Datasheet (Figure A4). The tower type document gives the setter

information such as size o f the footing stub and horizontal and vertical setting

dimensions from tower center.

K i i x r c w l i . M T . 'S t.

Figure A l. Tower Type Document. Reprinted from “Anchor Setting Dimensions,” by

Bonneville Power Administration, 2006. Reprinted with permission.
July 2014 revOO
 46

D IM ENSIO NS FOR 6 0 1BODY DIMENSIONS FOR 8 0 ' BODY DIM ENSIO NS FOR IOC?BODY
LEG
PLATE a ROCK PLATE ROCK PLATE 8 ROCK PLATE ROCK PLATE a ROCK PLATE ROCK
EXT
A B C C A B C C A B C C
5 '-0 ‘’ 15.246 10.839 17.660 16.440 18.781 13.339 21. 190 19.970 22.317 15.839 24.730 23.510
7 '- 6 ” 15.688 11.151 18.100 16.880 19.223 13.651 21.640 20.420 22.759 16. 151 25. 170 23.950
io' - o" 16. 130 11.464 18.540 17.320 19.665 13.964 22.080 20.860 23.201 16.464 25.610 24.390
12'-6" 16.571 II .776 18.980 17.760 20. 107 14.276 22.520 21.300 23.643 16.776 26.060 24.830
l5‘- 0 “ 17.013 12.089 19.430 18.210 20.549 14.589 22.960 21.740 24.085 17.089 26.500 25.280
17'-6" 17.455 12.401 19.870 18.650 20.991 14.901 23.400 22.180 24.526 17.401 26.940 25.720
so
CM

19.090 21.433 15.214 23.850 22.620 24.968 17.714

o

17.897 12.714 20.310 27.380 26.160

1

22'-6" 18.339 13.026 20.750 19.530 21.875 15.526 24.290 23.070 25.410 18.026 27.820 26.600
25'-0" 18.781 13.339 21.190 19.970 22.317 15.839 24.730 23.510 25.852 18.339 28.270 27.040
27 - 6° 19.223 13.651 21.640 20.420 22.759 16. 151 25.170 23.950 26.294 18.651 28.710 27.490
30 '-0“ 19.665 13.964 22.080 20.860 23.201 16.464 25.610 24.390 26.736 18.964 29.150 27.930
32‘-6" 20. 107 14.276 22.5 20 21.300 23.643 16.776 26.060 24.830 27. 178 19.276 29.590 28.370
S
14
«

20.549 14.589 22.960 21.740 24.085 17.089 26.500 25.280 27.620 19.589 30.030 28.810
0
1

37’-6" 20.991 14.901 23.400 22.180 24.526 17.401 26.940 25.>20 28.062 19.901 30.480 29.250
24.968 17.714 27.380 26. 160 28.504 20.214 30.920 29.700
o
0

21.433 15.214 23.850 22.620

1

4 2 -6 " 21.875 13.526 24.290 23.070 25.410 18.026 27.820 26.600 28.946 20.526 31.360 30.140
4 5 -0 ” 22.317 15.839 24.730 23.510 25.852 18.339 28.270 27.040 29.388 20.839 31.800 30.580
N o
*-

<0 0

22.759 16.151 25.1 70 23.950 26.294 18.65 1 28.710 27.490 29.830 21.151 32.240 31.020
i

23.20 1 16.464. 25.61 0 24.390 26.736 18.964 29.150 27.930 30.272 21.464 32.680 31.460
1

5 2 -6 " • ' '

55 - 0" .
57'-&“
__l All
6 0 -0

Figure A2. Setting Dimension Chart. Reprinted from “Anchor Setting Dimensions,” by
Bonneville Power Administration, 2006. Reprinted with permission.

The Steel Tower List gives the tower type, foundation base material, footing

type, and location o f the tower along the line. The Tower Site Datasheet gives elevations

for the four footings and the elevations o f the survey monuments for the tower.

July 2014 revOO

 47

S T A T IO N SPA N ANGLE TOW ER BODY LEG E X T E N S IO N S FTG TO P

AHEAD D E C -K T N TY PE HT 1 2 3 4 TY PE S O IL

2 7 9 + 3 6 .OBK 80S . 0 fl 56R T 148D 53 2 2 . 5 2 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 5 , 0 C R IL 1 . EARTH

1 7 7 * 4 4 .7A H
B E G IN C O N T IN U O U S GROUND W IR E

1 8 5 * 5 0 .0 1 2 5 0 . 0 148 A2 60 3 7 . 5 3 7 . 5 37 .5 3 7 . 5 PLA TE EARTH

1 9 8 -O O .C 1 1 0 0 . 0 148K 1 8 0 2 0 , 0 1 7 . 5 1 7 . 5 2 0 . 0 PLA TE EARTH

2C 9*O O .C 1 1 0 0 .0 148K 1 6 0 3 0 . 0 2 7 . 5 27 .5 3 0 . 0 PL A T E EARTH

2 .2 0 - 0 0 .C 1 0 0 0 , 0 148K 1 6 0 3 0 . 0 2 7 . 5 2 7 . 5 3 0 . 0 PL A T E EA RTH

2 JO * 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 0 . 0 14B K 1 6 0 3 0 . 0 27 . 3 2 7 . 5 3 0 .0 PI A T E EARTH

Figure A3. Steel Tower List. Reprinted from “Construction Data and Stringing
Instructions,” by Bonneville Power Administration, 2014. Reprinted with permission.

. __ __ . ___ ..... —
STATION WORKING POINT ELEVATIONS AND DIFFERENCES TO GROUND OFFSET COND POT/PI
WP. 1 DIF WP.2 DIF WP.3 DIF WP.4 DIF ELEV ELEV

279+36.QRK 389 70 2.1 392.20 1.7 392.20 2.8 387.20 2.0 462.8 388.09
177+44.?AH

185*50.0 40C.20 1 .5 400.20 1.3 400.20 0.9 400.20 0.2 479,8 398.98

198*00.0 400.00 1.0 4 02.50 1.4 402.50 1.5 400.00 I.2 483.4 J5S..81
209+00.0 385.60 o.s 338.10 1 3 388.10 1.4 385.60 0.6 459.C 385.91

220+00.0 367.30 0.4 370.00 1.5 370.00 1.1 367.50 0.9 440.9 367.8S

2 30*00.0 361.20 0.3 363.70 0.2 363.70 1.5 36'. .20 0.9 434.6 361.82

Figure A4. Tower Site Data. Reprinted from “Construction Data and Stringing
Instructions,” by Bonneville Power Administration, 2014. Reprinted with permission.

Site Survey

A site survey is the first step toward setting a footing. A licensed surveyor

verifies the tower location and installs a tower center hub or monument marking it with

the date, tower location and owner information. The initial survey and tower locate are

often performed by BPA and can be completed years before the start o f construction. At

the start o f construction, another surveyor confirms the existing monument locations
July 2014 revOO
 48

then places stakes at the four footing center locations for each tower along with a cut or

fill depth for elevation. The staking information is recorded on a tower staking sheet

which is later given to the setter and the setting crew for reference, calculations, and

final as-built documentation. Figure A5 shows a tower staking sheet.

Figure A5. Tower staking sheet. Reprinted from “Site Survey,” by Bonneville Power
Administration, 2014. Reprinted with permission.

July 2014 revOO

 49

Footing Setter Calculations

Once on site with tools, equipment and materials, the footing setter starts work

by verifying the survey information on the staking sheet and additionally staking offsets

for later reference. The first calculation the setter figures is the depth to which the

operator will need to excavate. The depth calculation is made by subtracting the height

o f the footing and ground elevation difference from the working point elevation (WPE).

The WPE for each leg o f the tower is given in the Tower Site Data document. Once the

footing excavation depth from ground level is known, the operator can begin excavation.

While the excavation process is under way, the setter continues calculating. The rest o f

the crew assembles the stub angle and prepares for installation o f the footing.

The field measurement construction dimensions for setting a particular footing

are not individually given in the construction documents. Engineers give the setter

specific dimensions such as the WPE, but they do not give many o f the necessary

dimensions for construction. BPA considers these calculations to be the responsibility o f

the firm contracted to set the footings, and that they are part o f their contract bidding

competitive edge by way o f means and methods specific to their firm. In addition to

means and methods, the height o f the transit, once set, is a variable that virtually

eliminates the possibility o f performing calculations prior to the day o f footing

installation. The setter must calculate construction dimensions based on the design

dimensions given. The construction dimensions needed include the height o f transit to

WPE, the sloped “A” distance and the double “B” distance. The sloped “A ” distance is

July 2014 revOO

 50

measured from the transit placed directly over tower center to the working point. This

measurement is different from the “C” distance because o f the angle on which the stub

angle and legs are placed to create the pyramid-like shape o f the tower. Both the “C”

distance and the “A” distance are given on the footing chart but both are given on a

horizontal plane. The “A” distance is pictured in Figure A l and shown in the chart in

Figure A2. For footing installation, these distances are almost never horizontal because

o f the height o f the transit and the elevation o f the working points both o f which can

vary from site to site and footing to footing. The “B” distance is given on the chart and is

a horizontal measurement from one footing, to the centerline between it, and the next

footing o f that tower. For footing installation, the double “B”, or distance from footing to

footing, must be calculated. In addition to simply adding the two “B” distances together,

the setter must calculate the elevation differences between the footings to get a sloped

double “B” distance. He must also account for “A” distance differences because o f the

batter o f the footings. The batter moves footings closer to tower center as they rise in

elevation and farther away as they lower in elevation. The triple calculation required to

obtain the double “B” is the most error prone calculation in footing setting. Once

calculated and measured, the purpose o f the double “B” is to verify that all other

dimension tolerances have been met. Due to the possibility o f error in calculation,

footing setters perform the calculations at least twice. At the same time, the quality

control inspector also calculates the numbers. Once the two are in agreement, the process

can continue.

July 2014 revOO

 51

Initial Measurements and Calculations. The first measurement the footing setter

takes is the Instrument Height (IH) or Measure Up (MU). This step is common to all

survey operations and consists o f measuring from a survey monument up to the height o f

the transit once it is set up and leveled. For footing setting, the IH is the measurement

from the Tower Center Monument up to the transit. The IH added to the Tower Center

Elevation is the Height o f Instrument (HI).

The next step is to calculate the Rod measurement. The Rod measurement is the

difference in elevation between the Height o f Instrument (HI) and Working Point

Elevation (WPE). As the footing setter does the math and calculates the construction

setting dimensions, they will also create a dimension sheet similar to the one shown in

Table A2. The information in Table A2 is compiled from the construction documents,

staking sheet and setter’s calculations. This document is used as a reference guide while

the footing stub is placed.

Calculating the Sloped “A” distance. The sloped “A” distance is calculated using

the Pythagorean Theorem: A 2+ B 2= C 2. The A 2 side and B 2 side o f the right triangle

consist o f the chart “A” dimension and the calculated Rod dimension. The C 2part o f the

equation is the sloped “A” distance.

Example: In Table 2, tower station 230+00.0 footing 1, the chart “A” distance is

19.665 feet. The Rod for tower station 230+00.0 footing 1 is 5.8 feet.

A 2+ B 2 = C 2

July 2014 revOO

 52

19.6652 + 5.82 = C 2

386.7122 +33.64 = C 2

V420.3522 = V c 1

20.5 = C = sloped “A” for footing 1 at tower station 230+00.0.

Calculating the Double “B” Distance. Calculating the double “B” starts with

considering the elevation difference, if any, between two adjacent footings in a particular

tower. If both footing W PE’s are at the same elevation, the two chart “B” distances can

be added to obtain the double “B” as shown for footings one and four in Table A2. If the

leg lengths and W PE’s between two adjacent footings are different, such as in footings

one and two shown in Table A2, further calculation is necessary to correct for the

difference in elevation and “A” distance. As the footing is raised or lowered in elevation,

it moves either closer or further from tower center because o f the pyramid shape o f

tower legs. The change in “A” distance o f a footing also lengthens or shortens the double

“B” distance o f two adjacent footings.

Two calculations are required for the double “B” dimension. This accounts for

the elevation difference and the “A” distance difference. Both calculations use the

Pythagorean Theorem (A 2 + B2 = C 2). In the first calculation, the two chart “B”

distances are added to make the A 2number. The elevation difference between the two

footings is the B 2 number. Once C is known, it is used as A in the second A 2 + B 2 - C 2

formula. B in the second A2 + B2 = C 2 formula is the difference between the two chart

July 2014 revOO

 53

“B” distances. C in the second A2 + B2 = C 2 formula is the double “B” for those two

tower legs.

Example: For tower station 230+00.0 footing 1, the chart “B” distance is 13.964

feet. The chart “B” distance for footing 2 is 13.651 feet. Added together, the two “B”

distances equal 27.651. The elevation difference between them is 2.5 feet.

a 2+ b 2= c 2

27.6512 + 2.52 = C 2

762.5882 +6.25 = C 2

a / 768.8382 = 4c2

27.72793 = C = “A” for second A 2+ B 2 = C 2 formula. The difference between the two

chart “B” distances is 0.313 feet and is used as B in the second A " + B 2= C 2 formula.

a 2+ b 2= c 2

21.1219V + 0.3132= C 5

768.8382 + 0.097969 = C :

a / 768.9362 = 4c2

27.73 = C = double “B” for footings 1 and 2.

July 2014 revOO

 54

Tower Tower Type Body Height

Station
230+00.0 148M1 60’
Batter Footing Type
Tower Center 361.82 2.125” or 2 1/8” Plate
Elevation
MU 5.18
HI 367.00

Leg# 1 2 3 4
Leg Length 30’ 27.5’ 27.5’ 30’
WPE 361.2 363.7 363.7 361.2
Rod 5.8’ 3.3’ 3.3’ 5.8’
Chart “A” 19.665 19.223 19.223 19.665
Sloped “A” 20.5’ 20.08’ 20.08’ 20.5’
Chart “B” 13.964 13.651 13.651 13.964

Double “B” 1 to 2 27.73’

2 to 3 27.30
3 to 4 27.73’
4 to 1 27.93

Table A2. Footing setting dimension sheet.

Excavation

There are four types o f steel tower footing base materials: plate, grillage, shaft,

and rock. Excavation for the tower footing depends entirely on the footing type. Footing

excavation is a separate process not covered in detail in this handbook. Plate and

Grillage footings are excavated using heavy equipment such as excavators. Shaft and

Rock footings are drilled. Plate, Grillage and Rock footing excavation is explained in

detail in the project specific technical specifications and the Master Agreement technical

specifications. Drilled shaft footing excavation is explained in great detail in the

National Highway Institute’s Drilled Shaft Inspection Handbook.

July 2014 revOO

 55

Placement

Placement o f the stub angle starts once the excavation and setting calculations

are complete. With direction from the footing setter the crew moves the assembled stub

angle into place. The stub angle is set to the correct batter and twist as well as the

calculated dimensions. The batter angle for the stub is found on the tower type

document, and is expressed as a fraction indicating the distance it moves horizontally in

a given change o f elevation much like the pitch o f a sloped roof. Twist is simply the

orientation o f the face o f the stub angle directly toward tower center. In order to meet the

tolerances o f all seven setting dimensions, crews manipulate the stub angle, measure,

and repeat until all dimensions match the setter’s numbers and the tolerances listed in

Table A l. At this point, backfill begins locking the stub angle into place with soil, rock

or concrete depending on the footing base type.

Backfill

As with excavation, backfill methods depend on the footing type and base

material. Plate and Grillage footings are backfilled with soil. Details o f soil backfill are

covered in the project specific technical specifications and the Master Agreement

technical specifications. Rock footings are backfilled with grout. Grouting is covered in

the project specific technical specifications and the Master Agreement technical

specifications. Shaft footings are backfilled with concrete. The National Highway

Institute’s Drilled Shaft Inspection Handbook is an excellent resource for shaft backfill

information.
July 2014 revOO
Location Verification or As-built

The staking sheet shown in Figure A5 is used to record as-built dimensions after the

footings are set but before the rest o f the tower is constructed. Each o f the setting

dimensions is measured and recorded on the back side o f the staking sheet. Recording

the final dimensions gives the crew a chance to check the physical dimensions o f the

footing to the setting tolerances shown in Table A l. As-built staking sheets are delivered

to the project manager for the project record.

Alternate Calculation Methods

Batter. The batter o f a tower leg and therefore the footing stub is located on the

tower type drawing. In cases where the batter is not listed or when a double check for

drawing accuracy is desired, the following formula can be used to calculate the batter.

View the chart for the footing in question. Choose the “A” distance for any two different

leg heights. Choosing leg heights that are 10 feet different makes the math very easy.

Next, subtract one “A” distance from the other “A” distance and divide the sum by the

vertical difference between the two leg lengths. The final step is to convert the decimal

feet answer to inches.

20 foot leg “A” distance = 17.897

30 foot leg “A” distance = 19.665

1 9 .665- 17.897= 1.768

July 2014 revOO

 57

1.768/ 10 = 0.1768

0.1768 (12) = 2.1216” or 2 1/8”

“B” distance. Errors in chart data for tower footings are rare, although not

impossible. There are several methods for double checking chart data and calculated

dimensions, including comparing the chart dimensions to the calculated dimensions.

Usually the calculated dimension is only slightly different from the chart dimension. If a

large difference is present, it indicates a large difference in another variable such as

elevation or indicates an error that warrants further investigation.

A double check for the chart “B” distance involves simple algebra based on

simple geometry as shown in Figure A6. To check the chart “B” distance, multiply the

chart “A ” distance by 0.7071 then add the thickness o f the stub angle steel. The

thickness o f the stub angle steel has to be added because the chart “A” distance is

measured at the working point but the “B” distance is measured to the outside o f the stub

angle steel opposite the working point.

B2+ B2= A2

2 B2 = A2

42 B = A

B = —42 A
2

B = 0.7071 A

July 2014 revOO

 58

Footing

A distance
B

Tower Center
B

Figure A6. “B” distance check.

Double “B” Alternate Calculation M ethod. As with checking the chart “B”

distance, the “A ” distance and thickness o f the stub angle steel can be used in the

following formula to calculate the double “B” as an alternate method where HD is the

horizontal distance and BB is the double “B” distance.

Leg 1, chart “A” distance: 19.665 plus steel thickness 0.125ft - 19.79

Leg 2, chart “A” distance: 19.223 plus steel thickness 0.125ft = 19.348

19.792 + 19.3482 = H D 2

391.6441 + 374.3451 = H D 2

a / 765.9892 = HD

July 2014 revOO

 59

27.67651 = HD

H D 2 + Elevation Difference2 = B B 2

27.676512 + 2 . 5 2 = B B 2

765.9892 +6.25 = B B 2

a /7712392 = BB

27.79 = BB

Luke 2.0 the Footing Setting Program

Consider the number o f calculations necessary for a single footing installation

and the number o f variables in those calculations. There is no question as to why footing

setting is highly specialized, and footing setters are rare individuals in the power line

construction trade. One might ask themselves why the dimensions needed to set a

footing are not found in the construction documents. The answer is that field conditions

and the tools used to overcome them vary. The single variable o f the transit height can

differ 12 inches or more from one setup to another. The reason for the variance is site

conditions. The site may be on the side o f a mountain where one leg o f the transit is

three feet below the other sides and the tower center monument is eighteen inches higher

than it would be on flat ground.

July 2014 revOO

 60

Eliminating variables from the calculations such as human error would greatly

reduce the chance o f errors in the final setting process. Computer programs such as

Microsoft Excel were designed for this purpose. Excel, on its own, will calculate the

numbers if a footing setter can use it in the field but without a software structure for

footing setting it is little more than a large calculator. Luke 2.0, shown in Figure A7, is a

software package designed by a BPA inspector that operates in Excel and is designed

specifically for steel tower footing setting calculations.

ROP D O W N LIST

2 ; BPA INSPECTOR 4 /2 6 /2 0 1 4 « T O D A Y 'S DATE

3 i John Smith POT&BM T.C. ELE. LINE N U M . # # # /# SERIAL NUMBER 'OW ERTYPE BODY H‘ STATION

4 Error

5 ROTATED/SQUARE POT/PI T.C. ELEV. TOWER TYPE BODY HT ANGLE OEC--MIN OFFSET

6
7 TOWER CENTER ELEVATION | SOIL FOOTING TYPE SPAN AHEAD CONDUCTOR ELEV

g ; HEl GHT OF INSTRUMENT

9 LEVAT! ON OF INSTRUMENT wmMf ALL VALUES M U S T BE IN D E C IM A L FEET

10 ! LEG # 1 LEG # 2 LEG# 3 LEG # 4 TO W ER LIST

11 LEG EXT. TO W ER LIST RC TOW ER

12 SITE DATA

W .P.E. SITE DATA

1 3 ,

14 ! W .P. ELEVATION

1 5 JRVEY G ROUND ELEVATION MCNARY JOHNOAY

16 TEDATAW.P TOGROUNO V ~ARGE~ V

1 7 i SURVEY W .P. TO GROUND

Figure A7. Luke 2.0. Reprinted from “Luke 2.0,” by Luke Hatfield 2014. Reprinted with
permission.

July 2014 revOO

 61

The program uses a few simple inputs from the footing setter and produces a

complete set o f construction dimensions, as well as as-built fields, tolerance checks, and

many other calculations.

Figure A7 shows the main page o f Luke 2.0. The footing setter needs only to

input the Instrument Height and the tower location. The program uses that information

and information about the line construction project and produces a working footing

setting dimension sheet as shown in Figure A8. The program also contains other useful

information generated from the preprogrammed data and additional inputs from the

footing setter including graphical representations o f the tower legs and a slope

calculator. Target measurements, tolerances, and decimal feet to decimal inch

conversions are built in as well.

July 2014 revOO

 62

ENTER VALUE

"A" DIMENSION

"B” DIMENSION

ANDARD C DIMENSION

13 MCONC'C” DIMENSION

"1 i DEPTH OF CUT "SUB" 1855 31.05 33.55 23.55

25 )D FINE GRADE "FINE" 1830 30.80 3330 23.30

26 SLOPE "A" 1559 23.10 25.11 17.91

27 ROD TO W.P. 2.47 14.97 17.47 7.47

28 AS BUILT ROD SHOT

23 1 TO 3 2 TO 4

30. 1BLEA DIMENSION’S » 33.43 3357 ENTER DEC. F E E T > | mi

31 SLOPE CORRECTED 36.64 34.69 CALC. DEC. FEET > 0.18

32■BSBBHHIHBH
33 1 TO 2 2 TO 3
P CALC. INCHES >

3 TO 4
2.12

4 TO 1

3i 30UBLE B DIMENSION'S 23.44 25.31 24.38 22.50

35 SLOPE ONLY! 2656 25.44 2635 23.05
36 3rd BOX CORRECTION 0359 0.012 0.047 0.027
37 3 8c A CORRECTION 26.62 25.45 2639 23.08

Figure A8. Luke 2.0 Footing Setting Dimensions. Reprinted from “Luke 2.0,” by Luke
Hatfield 2014. Reprinted with permission.

With the purchase o f the program, a license is granted for a specific period and

includes programming for a single line construction project. Extensions o f the license

period and additional line construction programming services are available from the

copyright owner.

July 2014 revOO

 63

REFERENCES

Bonneville Power Administration. (2006). [Tower Type Document] Anchor Setting

Dimensions.

Bonneville Power Administration. (2009). [Footing Setting Dimensions] BPA Standard

Technical Specification.

Bonneville Power Administration. (2014). [Steel Tower List] Construction Data and

Stringing Instructions.

Bonneville Power Administration. (2014). [Tower staking sheet] Site Survey.

Luke 2.0 (Version 1.2) [Computer Software], lukehatfield@hotmail.com

July 2014 revOO

 A P P E N D IX B

PROJECT CHARTER
 Project Charter

This project is applicable to high-voltage transmission line tower construction on

the US Department o f Energy Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) system. High-

voltage transmission line towers are an integral part o f the power grid. Towers hold the

wire that allows transmission o f electricity and keep the wires located safely above the

people and objects they might endanger. BPA operates 15,000 miles o f transmission line

and builds approximately 200 miles o f new transmission line per year. BPA is focused

on safety first and reliability next. BPA believes a reduction in construction errors will

improve both reliability and safety.

Project Background and Dynamics

Tower failures result in damage to property, as well as the potential for human

injury and death. When failures occur, they can be attributed to several types o f causes

including structural, environmental, or geological failures. The causes o f tower failure

often relate to issues such as poor design, unusual or extreme loading, or construction

errors.

A common type o f transmission tower is the lattice steel tower. Lattice steel

towers are used for electrical transmission as well as communications mediums such as

cellular and broadcast antennas. Studies have shown that 31% o f tower failures can be

attributed to construction errors. Newly designed lattice steel towers are proof tested

before entering into active service. The proof test consists o f full-scale construction o f a

tower design and load testing to failure. Proof testing is common for transmission line

July 2014 revOO

 66

towers but has limitations and does not reveal flaws in foundations. Studies have

revealed high foundation defect rates with several types o f errors and flaws. Internal

studies at BPA have revealed error rates o f up to 9% on completed foundations, and up

to 90% during the construction process.

The purpose o f this study is to reduce the error rate in the construction o f

transmission line tower foundations. Construction errors can be reduced or eliminated by

developing and implementing processes and tools that reduce waste and increase

accuracy by educating the construction crews performing the work. Studies have shown

that a major reason for construction errors is that crews building towers must make

engineering decisions but frequently lack the knowledge to do so. This project is

intended to prevent rework, increase productivity and reduce costs. The project is also

focused on reducing or eliminating errors in the construction o f transmission line lattice

steel towers. The project accomplishes this goal by presenting a process map and best

practices manual for improving the construction quality o f transmission line tower

foundations.

Goal and Objectives

BPA would like to reduce the transmission line tower foundation error rate on

completed foundations to less that 1%. BPA would also like to reduce the error rate for

work in progress on foundations to less than 10%. In addition to reducing rework, these

improvements will increase safety and overall reliability o f the power grid. The

improvements should also reduce the cost o f construction for new power lines.

July 2014 revOO

 67

Formal Project Charter

Project Charter: Reducing Foundation Error Rate

Project Name: Reducing Foundation Error Rate

Project Sponsor: Jennifer B. (TETQ Manager)

Sponsoring Organization: Bonneville Power Administration, TETQ

Project Black Belt: Tom Langston

Email: tdlangston@bpa.gov

Team Members: Shantini R.

LukeH.

LenS.

Principle Stakeholders: BP A TETQ

Shantini R. (Transmission line construction manager)

Chad H. (Transmission line project manager)

MYR - Sturgeon (Line Construction Prime Contractor)

BWI (Foundation Sub-contractor)

Targeted Completion Date: 12/31/14

July 2014 revOO

 68

Project Charter Statement

This project will map, revise and implement a best practices process for

transmission tower foundation construction.

Project Mission Statement

The missions are to reduce the transmission line tower foundation error rate on

completed foundations to less than 1%, to reduce the error rate for work in process on

foundations to less than 10%, and to reduce the error rate for work in progress on

foundations to less than 10%.

Problem Statement

An internal study at BPA concluded that foundation error rates were 14% for individual

footing setting operations in each process and as high as 70% for the entire process o f

foundation installation. Since 31% o f tower failures can be attributed to construction

errors, the error rate must be reduced to ensure system reliability.

Some o f the errors noted in the study were:

• Crews using incorrect site datasheets

• Incorrect field calculations for setting dimensions

• Incorrect formulas for calculating field dimensions

• Improper backfill and compaction techniques causing uneven settling

• Crews lacking knowledge o f foundation tolerances

July 2014 revOO

 69

Project Description and Scope

This project will examine the current processes, tools, and materials used in

foundation construction. The team will determine the best practices and any new

technologies that may increase the accuracy o f installation then document them into a

handbook for distribution to workers in the field. The team will oversee the

implementation o f the best practices and will measure results.

Business Need

BPA’s commitment to reliability o f the bulk electric system is also written into

federal law and enforced by regulatory agencies. Reducing error rates and thus

improving reliability is critical to BPA’s organizational mission. Additional benefits

from this project are safety o f the general public as well as overall cost savings by

reducing construction costs and repairs due to failure.

Deliverables

This project is expected to result in the following four deliverables:

1) A clear and easy to understand process map for foundation construction.

2) All necessary mathematical formulas for calculating field dimensions.

3) Introduction and application o f new tools and technologies to improve the

accuracy o f foundation construction.

4) A complete handbook for foundation crew reference in the field.

July 2014 revOO

 70

Resources

The project requires sponsor support for the use o f the project leader

(approximately 20 percent) and for the core team members on a part time basis

(approximately 5%) for the duration o f the project. Purchase o f new technology items

will be needed with a maximum investment o f $25,000.

July 2014 revOO

 APPENDIX C

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS DATA

 72

Table 1

First Sample Statistics

Sample 1, Before Handbook Distribution

Sample X x bar (x-x bar) (x-x bar)2 Sample X x bar (x-x bar) (x-x bar)2

1 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 21 3 0.975 2.025 4.100625

2 1 0.975 0.025 0.000625 22 2 0.975 1.025 1.050625

3 1 0.975 0.025 0.000625 23 4 0.975 3.025 9.150625

4 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 24 2 0.975 1.025 1.050625

5 1 0.975 0.025 0.000625 25 2 0.975 1.025 1.050625

6 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 26 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625

7 1 0.975 0.025 0.000625 27 4 0.975 3.025 9.150625

8 2 0.975 1.025 1.050625 28 3 0.975 2.025 4.100625

9 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 29 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625

10 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 30 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625

11 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 31 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625

12 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 32 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625

13 1 0.975 0.025 0.000625 33 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625

14 3 0.975 2.025 4.100625 34 3 0.975 2.025 4.100625

15 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 35 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625

16 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 36 1 0.975 0.025 0.000625

17 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 37 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625

18 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 38 4 0.975 3.025 9.150625

19 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 39 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625

20 0 0.975 -0.975 0.950625 40 1 0.975 0.025 0.000625

Sum 68.975

Variance= 1.7686

Standard Deviation = 1.3299

July 2014 revOO

 73

Table 2

Second Sample Statistics

Sample 2, After Handbook Distribution

Sample X x bar (x-x bar) (x-x bar)2 Sample X xbar (x-x bar) (x-x bar)2

1 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 21 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

2 1 0.325 0.675 0.455625 22 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

3 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 23 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

4 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 24 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

5 1 0.325 0.675 0.455625 25 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

6 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 26 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

7 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 27 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

8 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 28 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

9 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 29 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

10 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 30 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

11 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 31 0 0.325 -0.325 0 .105625

12 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 32 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

13 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 33 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

14 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 34 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

15 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 35 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

16 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625 36 1 0.325 0.675 0.455625

17 3 0.325 2.675 7.155625 37 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

18 3 0.325 2.675 7.155625 38 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

19 2 0.325 1.675 2.805625 39 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

20 2 0.325 1.675 2.805625 40 0 0.325 -0.325 0.105625

Sum 24.775

Variance= 0.6353

Standard Deviation = 0.7 97 0

July 2014 revOO

Table 3

Results o f Statistical Analysis

Summary Values

Value Sample 1 (SI) Sample 2 (S2) (S1)-(S2)

N 40 40 40

Sum 39 13 26

Mean 0.975 0.325 0.65

Variance 1.7686 0.6353 2.9

St. Dev. 1.3299 0.797 1.7029

df = 39
t = 2.41
P = 0.2057

July 2014 revOO