100%(1)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (1 Abstimmung)
83 Ansichten38 Seiten
The document discusses how structure and foundation selection for overhead power lines should be done together based on electrical criteria, geography, environmental issues, and geology. It provides examples of different structure and foundation types and their best/worst applications. Case studies give examples of how various criteria like shallow rock or wetlands would influence choosing self-supporting towers with drilled pier foundations or H-frame structures with helical anchors. Foundation selection is important as it can cost 40-100% of the structure cost, so all influencing factors must be considered to select the best foundation type for the conditions.
The document discusses how structure and foundation selection for overhead power lines should be done together based on electrical criteria, geography, environmental issues, and geology. It provides examples of different structure and foundation types and their best/worst applications. Case studies give examples of how various criteria like shallow rock or wetlands would influence choosing self-supporting towers with drilled pier foundations or H-frame structures with helical anchors. Foundation selection is important as it can cost 40-100% of the structure cost, so all influencing factors must be considered to select the best foundation type for the conditions.
The document discusses how structure and foundation selection for overhead power lines should be done together based on electrical criteria, geography, environmental issues, and geology. It provides examples of different structure and foundation types and their best/worst applications. Case studies give examples of how various criteria like shallow rock or wetlands would influence choosing self-supporting towers with drilled pier foundations or H-frame structures with helical anchors. Foundation selection is important as it can cost 40-100% of the structure cost, so all influencing factors must be considered to select the best foundation type for the conditions.
Overhead Lines Subcommittee Foundation Selection Process By: Paul G Cass, P. E. STRUCTURE FOUNDATION
THE FOUNDATION SELECTION PROCESS SHOULD BE PART OF THE STRUCTURE SELECTION PROCESS FOUNDATION/STRUCTURE SELECTION IS INFLUNCED BY: ELECTRICAL CRITERIA AND EFFECTS TOPOGRAPHY/GEOGRAPHY SITING/ROW LIMITATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES GEOLOGY ELECTRICAL CRITERIA AND EFFECTS LINE VOLTAGE LINE CURRENT SINGLE/DOUBLE CIRCUITS UNDERBUILD EMF ISSUES THESE CRITERIA AFFECT THE MINIMUM SIZE OF STRUCTURE (CLEARANCES) AND LOADS (CONDUCTOR SIZE) TOPOGRAPHY/GEOGRAPHY STRUCTURE SPACING /TYPE ACCESS CONSTRUCTABILITY STREAMS/FLOODING GEOLOGIC HAZARDS SITING/ROW LIMITATIONS ROW WIDTH BLOWOUT STRUCTURE SPACING LOCATION AND QUANTITY OF ANGLE STRUCTURES AESTHETICS RESTRICTIONS ON TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Wetland avoidance/restrictions Construction noise Endangered species restrictions Time of construction restrictions Type of construction limitations GEOLOGY WHERE IS TOP OF ROCK? HARD ROCK ISSUES WATER ISSUES SOFT/USSTABLE SOIL ISSUES LANDSLIDES/KARST/MINING/SUBSIDENCE STRUCTURE CHOICES (TYP) SELF SUPPORTING LATTICE STEEL TOWER GUYED-V LATTICE STRUCTURE STEEL POLE CONCRETE POLE WOOD POLE STEEL POLE H-FRAME WOOD H-FRAME SELF SUPPORTING LATTICE STEEL TOWER Best For High Voltage, large or bundled conductor Long Span Construction, hilltop to hill top Rigid termination or dead-end structures Low material cost Worst For High structure erection cost Aesthetics GUYED-V LATTICE STRUCTURE Best For High Voltage, large or bundled conductor Long Span Construction, hilltop to hill top Low material and erection cost Worst For Limited right-of-way width STEEL, CONCRETE & WOOD POLES Best For General purpose structure for most voltages and varied site conditions Limited right-of-way widths Worst For Sites with shallow hard rock Sites with deep soft soil STEEL & WOOD POLE H-FRAMES Best For 69 to 230kV lines Medium span construction (400 to 800 feet) Low cost materials and construction Can be guyed for longitudinal capacity Worst For FOUNDATION TYPES CHOICES CYLINDRICAL FOUNDATIONS SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS GROUP ACTION FOUNDATIONS ANCHOR TYPE FOUNDATIONS CYLINDRICAL FOUNDATIONS DRILLED PIER DIRECT EMBEDMENT VIBRATORY POLE OR CAISSON HYBRID POLES
DRILLED PIER Best For Flexibility in designing and constructing foundation Generally cost effective for poles Worst For Sites with equipment Access issues Sites with shallow hard rock Sites with deep soft or loose soil
DIRECT EMBEDMENT Best For Generally more cost effective than drilled piers Tangent poles Worst For Large angle or dead-end poles Groundline corrosion Sites with high water table or unstable soils Sites with shallow hard rock Sites with deep soft or loose soil
VIBRATED POLES OR CAISSON Best For Sites with granular soils Sites with high water table Worst For Stiff clays, shallow rock Deep foundations Groundline corrosion
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS GRILLAGE OR BASKET CONCRETE SPREAD FOOTING CONCRETE MATS CONCRETE RING GRILLAGE OR BASKET Best For Sites with normal soil conditions Low cost using small common equipment Worst For Groundline corrosion Sites with deep soft or loose soil Sites with shallow hard rock Structures with heavy loads
CONCRETE SPREAD FOOTING Best For Flexible foundation sizing Heavy loads supported by soil Potential to incorporate rock anchors to improve uplift capacity. Worst For Generally higher costs than other foundation types Sites with shallow hard rock
CONCRETE MATS Best For Soft, loose and varied soil conditions Uplift resistance provided by foundation weight Reduced bearing pressure on soil Shallow water Preventing differential settlement problems Worst For Relatively high cost Normal soil conditions
GROUP ACTION FOUNDATIONS PILE GROUP MICROPOLE GROUP HELICAL PULLDOWN MICROPILE GROUP ROCK ANCHOR GROUP PILE GROUPS Best For Sites with expected construction difficulties associated with water and side wall caving Granular soil with increasing density with depth Battered piles to improve lateral capacity Worst For Limited uplift capacity in stiff clays Relatively high cost
MICROPILE GROUPS Best For Sites with thick layer of soft or loose soil over rock or dense soil. May be cost effective over drilled piers if rock excavation is difficult Battered piles to improve lateral capacity Worst For Where drilled piers are cost effective Relatively high cost
HELICAL PULLDOWN MICROPILE GROUP Best For Granular soils below the water table. Use cased helical micropile where difficulty in maintaining an open hole is anticipated. Battered piles to improve lateral capacity. Potential for significant cost savings over drilled piers at difficult sites. Worst For Where drilled piers are cost effective
PILE GROUP HELICAL PULLDOWN MICROPILE Ref: AB Chance ROCK ANCHOR GROUPS Best For Shallow hard rock May be cost effective over drilled piers if rock excavation is difficult Worst For Deep rock Where drilled piers are cost effective
ANCHOR TYPE FOUNDATIONS HELICAL ANCHORS DEAD-MAN ANCHORS EXPANDING ANCHORS ROCK ANCHORS MALONE FOUNDATION HELICAL ANCHOR FOUNDATION ROCK EMBEDDMENT OF TOWER STUB ANGLE
HELICAL ANCHORS Best For Normal Soil Flexible depth and helix configurations. Worst For Boulders & cobbles Deep soft soils Shallow rock
DEAD-MAN ANCHORS Best For Anchor capacity in poor soil Improved anchor capacity in normal soils Flexible design Worst For Relative high cost compared with helix anchors
EXPANDING ANCHORS Best For Normal Soil Flexible depth and expanding anchors. Sites with cobbles Poor access sites - jackhammer installation Worst For Shallow rock
ROCK ANCHORS Best For Shallow rock Worst For Unstable overlying soils Deep rock
MALONE FOUNDATION Design and construction similar to Franki foundation Best For Sites with loose to medium dense granular improves soil Potential for significant cost savings Worst For Non-standard construction Difficult QC Sites with stiff clays or shallow rock HELICAL ANCHOR FOUNDATION Best For Towers with stub angles Granular soils below the water table Sites with expected construction difficulties associated with water and side wall caving Potential for significant cost savings over drilled piers Worst For Shallow rock Sites with cobbles Ref: AB Chance ROCK EMBEDMENT OF STUB ANGLE Best For Shallow rock Towers with stub angles Low cost Worst For Deep rock Limited flexibility in foundation depth
Case Study 1 ELECTRICAL CRITERIA AND EFFECTS 345kV Single Circuit Line EMF controls structure height , conductor configuration and phasing TOPOGRAPHY/GEOGRAPHY Mountainous SITING/ROW LIMITATIONS 250 ROW shared with existing 345kV tower line ENVIRONMENTAL Wetland avoidance, Endangered Species GEOLOGY Shallow Igneous Rocks or Soft Alluvial Deposits over rock
Case Study 2 ELECTRICAL CRITERIA AND EFFECTS 230kV single circuit replacing 138kV double circuit on towers TOPOGRAPHY/GEOGRAPHY Flat SITING/ROW LIMITATIONS Access limited to only the existing access road (10 except at structures) ENVIRONMENTAL Extreme limits on disturbance and time of construction GEOLOGY High Value Wetlands, 4 organics overlying 30 of loose to medium dense sand over 100 dense sand
SUMMARY STRUCTURE AND FOUNDATION SELECTIONS SHOULD BE MADE TOGETHER. FOUNDATIONS COST A LOT - 40% TO 100% OF STRUCTURE COST CONSIDER OTHER INFLUENCES IN STRUCTURE/FOUNDATION SELECTION PROCESS Soft unstable soils and hard rock usually cause the greatest problems if the wrong foundation is chosen