Historical Experience and Challenges of Proceedings of 13th Baltic Sea Geotechnical Conference

Geotechnical Problems in Baltic Sea Region ISSN 2424-5968 / ISBN 978-609-457-957-8

Lithuanian Geotechnical Society eISSN 2424-5976 / eISBN 978-609-457-956-1
Lithuania, 2224 September 2016 DOI: http://doi.org/10.3846/13bsgc.2016.020

Ultimate Limit State Design of Spread Foundations in The Case of Uplift

Witold Bogusz
Department of Geotechnics and Foundation, Building Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. As vast majority of spread foundations are never subjected to vertical uplift loads, the subject of uplift ca-
pacity in such cases is barely covered by current European standards. Although the limit state design due to uplift is
a subject of a section 10 of Eurocode 7, it mainly covers the possibility of a hydraulic failure while taking into the ac-
count any destabilizing variable actions. However, in the case of separate foundations of lattice towers used as support
structures for overhead power lines, the uplift capacity of spread foundations often governs the design. The rules for
the design of these structures are included in the informative annex M of EN 50341-1: 2012 Overhead electrical lines
exceeding AC 1 kV Part 1: General requirements Common specifications. Rules presented in this standard differ
significantly from those presented in Eurocode 7. The purpose of this paper is to present the design approaches for the
limit state design of spread foundations subjected to uplift, while the differences between design rules and resulting
variation of reliability are the primary concerns.
Keywords: Spread foundations, limit state design, uplift, Eurocode 7, overhead power lines.
Conference topic: Design experiences and theoretical solutions.

current European standards: EN 1997-1: 2008 and EN

Introduction 50341-1: 2012; their main assumptions, simplifications
In the vast majority of cases when spread foundations and resulting uncertainties are discussed. Finally,
are designed, their bearing capacity in compression is a basic comparison of resulting overall factors of safety
the main concern for geotechnical engineers, as well as is presented, based on the partial factors proposed in
the key factor guiding the design. In some cases, when these standards and used in Polish practice.
compressive vertical load is relatively small, the tilt,
often limited by the allowable load eccentricity, is the
Failure mechanism for spread foundation in uplift
next important limit state to consider. In standard design
practice, occurrence of the uplift force acting on the Uplift of a spread foundation is resisted by its self-
foundation is rare, and rather avoided. However, uplift weight, earth surcharges and shear forces in the soil (EN
resistance of a spread foundation is the primary concern 50341-1: 2012). Loaded in uplift, spread foundation can
in some particular cases. fail in distinctly different modes (IEEE 2001), which
According to IEEE Guide (2001) and EN 50341-1: may depend on:
2012, the uplift capacity of a spread foundation is often the construction procedure;
the controlling condition in the case of geotechnical foundation depth;
design for support structures of transmission lines with soil properties;
separate footings for each leg. Some load cases, usually
in-situ soil stress.
caused by extreme wind load or sudden failure of the
Two main failure modes can be identified in uplift
conductors (overhead lines), will result in vertical com-
(Kulhawy et al. 2003; Pacheco et al. 2008), one for
pression loading for some of the foundations, with ac-
shallow, and one for deep spread foundations. For the
companying vertical uplift in the others (Fig. 1). In
former, most commonly used, a vertical shear pattern or
some cases, like terminal or heavy angle towers, where
cone/wedge failure along inclined planes can occur; for
direction of the transmission line is changed at the spe-
the latter, a type of punch-through failure might take
cific tower, it may result in uplift as a normal long-term
place above the foundation.
or frequently occurring condition (Eskom 2005;
According to IEEE Guide (2001), in some cases,
Pacheco et al. 2008). To provide resistance to uplift,
variations of abovementioned mechanism can occur; for
spread foundations are often preferred to pile founda-
stiff soils with well compacted backfill, a combined
tions as their design is relatively simpler; furthermore,
vertical shear and cone/wedge failure may develop.
their construction does not require specialised drilling
While for deep foundations and with relatively loose
rigs and deep geotechnical investigation. It is especially
backfill, when the vertical shear is greater than upward
important in areas where access by heavy rigs and
bearing capacity of the backfill, punching or bearing
equipment is not possible or economically justified.
capacity failure is possible.
This paper presents the general background and
Generalized uplift capacity model, presented at
the approaches for uplift resistance verification for
Figure 2, shows the possible combination of failure
spread foundations, available in accordance with the

2016 The Authors. Published by VGTU Press. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Com-
mons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
 Bogusz, W. 2016. Ultimate limit state design of spread foundations in the case of uplift

where:
Qxr design value of the horizontal
Gkr design value of the self-weight of the support;
Scr design value of the vertical compression load on the
single foundation;
Swr design value of the vertical uplift load on the single
foundation;
Hxr design value of the horizontal load on the single founda-
tion;
Gfr design value of the self-weight of the foundation;
Gzr design value of the self-weight of the soil above the
foundation.

Fig. 1. Schematic loading of a separate footings of a lattice

tower (Source: PN-80/B-03322: 1980)

Fig. 2. Possible failure mechanisms in uplift and calculation models

(Source: IEEE 2001; Kulhawy et al. 2003)

modes that take place when spread foundation fails the curved surface methods in which the re-
under the tensile load. Additionally, this general model sistance is provided by the weight of the soil in
can be separated into specific failure modes, which are the curved zone; according to Pacheco et al.
often the base for calculation models presented in stand- (2008), the actual failure obtained from tensile
ards (i.e. EN 50341-1: 2012), guidelines (i.e. IEEE, tests in stiff soils is often curvilinear.; however,
2001) and literature (Kulhawy et al. 2003). it may be replaced by an equivalent simplified
Most calculation models used in design are simpli- conical surface;
fied analytical approaches to the issue concerning uplift a bearing capacity or cavity expansion methods
resistance, or semi-empirical methods based on general valid mainly for deep spread foundations.
behavioural model presented at Figure 2. The IEEE
(2001) guide distinguishes four categories of methods,
which can be used, each with some limitations: Basic equilibrium model
the cone or wedge methods which assume the The simplest analytical, equilibrium model (Kulhawy
uplift resistance results only from the weight of et al. 2003), assumes the vertical shear lines. In the most
the foundation and the soil enclosed within the basic form, the total uplift capacity, Qu, in vertical shear
cone/wedge at a zero degree angle they give mode can be evaluated (IEEE Guide 2001) as:
conservative results, disregarding soil strength
and stress state; while for angle greater than ze- Qu = W + Qsu + Qtu , (1)
ro, they substitute an equivalent weight of the where: W is the sum of the weight of the foundation (Wf)
soil for the soil stresses and strength; and soil (Ws) within the volume B x L x D; Qsu is side
the shear methods assume a vertical shear sur- resistance; Qtu is tip resistance.
face, taking into account the shear strength of The side resistance, Qsu, can be evaluated as:
the soil these types of methods are described
in more details in subsequent sections of the pa- Qsu = U v ,i K i tan i d i , (2)
per;

144
 Bogusz, W. 2016. Ultimate limit state design of spread foundations in the case of uplift

where: U circumference of the foundation base; v,i Factors affecting the resistance to uplift
vertical effective stress at mid-depth of the layer; Ki
The construction procedure
operative horizontal stress coefficient at mid-depth of
the layer; i interface friction angle at mid-depth of the From geotechnical point of view, the construction of a
layer; di thickness of the layer. spread foundation subjected to uplift does not have to
According to EPRI Report (1995) and Kulhawy differ from the one resisting compression only.
et al. (2003), the tip resistance under undrained condi- The construction phases consist of: excavation, placing
tions develops from suction forces, and can be estimated the foundation, backfilling over, and if necessary,
by: around the foundation.
The main difference lies in the form and the extent
Qtu = ( u ui ) Atip , (3) of the excavation (Fig. 3). It can have either vertical or
inclined walls, while the excavation itself can be either
where: ui initial pore water pressure at the foundation neat or oversized (IEEE 2001). In the case of neat, ver-
base; u change in pore water pressure caused by un- tical excavations, the distinction can be made between
drained loading; Atip base area. the excavation with or without an undercut (EN 50341-
For long-term (drained) conditions, the tip resistance 1: 2012). The construction procedure may promote spe-
can be assumed to be zero, as it might develop only from cific, foreseeable failure mechanism, i.e. shear failure in
bonding of concrete with the underlying soil, thus, depend- backfill for an inclined, oversized excavation, or shear
ing on the tensile strength of the soil. However, disregard- failure in native soil in the case of neat, vertical excava-
ing suction in short-term (undrained) conditions may be tion with an undercut.
advisable, since it is often governed by factors beyond In most cases, the shallow spread foundation sub-
geotechnical engineers control, and omitting it allows us jected to uplift will fail in vertical shear, either cylindri-
to err on the side of safety. Moreover, the addition of suc- cal or rectangular, depending on the shape of the base.
tion to the total uplift resistance assumes that no breakaway The difference in parameters between the native soil and
is possible while the foundation is fully bonded with the the backfill will play a significant role in the side re-
soil at the interface, which is often not the case (Li et al. sistance; the uplift resistance might be strongly depend-
2015). ant on the backfill compaction. The weaker of the back-
IEEE (2001) guideline provides the design proce- fill and the native soil will control the resistance, as
dure based on the possible failure models presented at usually there is no reduction of shear strength at the
Figure 2. Firstly, the uplift capacity is calculated as for interface between both soils. Kulhawy et al. (2003)
the basic equilibrium model (Kulhawy et al. 2003). noted that for loose or medium dense native soils, only
Secondly, calculated capacity is modified for a modest increase in uplift capacity will be noted with
cone/wedge breakout. Finally, upper bound of the ca- the increase of backfill density; while in the case of
pacity is calculated for punching capacity. This method dense native soil, with increasing depth, the increase
does not have limitations contrary to the methods de- will be more noticeable.
scribed previously.

Fig. 3. Possible excavation and construction procedure variations

(Source: IEEE 2001; EN-50431-1: 2012)

145
 Bogusz, W. 2016. Ultimate limit state design of spread foundations in the case of uplift

Foundation depth (undrained, governed by the undrained shear strength)

and long-term (drained, governed by the effective shear
The failure surface reaches the ground level in shallow
strength parameters) has to be made. Since the most
mode and the resistance is provided by the foundation base
unfavourable loading conditions will usually result from
only; while in deep mode, the shaft of the foundation can
variable actions (i.e. wind load), a short-term resistance
provide additional resistance (Fig. 4). The failure of the
will guide the design for fine-grained soils. Naturally,
foundation is governed by the lower of the uplift resistanc-
the shear strength parameters will directly impact the
es for the shallow and deep mode. Based on that, a simple
value of the shear resistance along the vertical shear
distinction can be made between both modes by the means
surface.
of identifying the critical depth at which the mode of fail-
ure changes. Pacheco et al. (2008) suggested that the criti-
In-situ soil stress
cal depth is no less than two times of the diameter or the
width of the foundation; thus, typically for the supports of For the analytical methods of estimating the uplift re-
the overhead power lines, the failure will occur in shallow sistance of a spread foundation, a horizontal stress coef-
mode. ficient plays an important role in calculating the side
resistance. According to IEEE (2001) guide, it may vary
Soil properties from the value equal to Ka for native soil with loose
backfill, up to the value exceeding 1,00 for well com-
Significant differences in the resistance calculation pro-
pacted backfill. For normally consolidated soils, a value
cedure can result from the soil properties. First and
of K0 = 1 sin may be conservatively assumed in
foremost, the mode of failure (Fig. 4) will depend on the
long-term conditions. A careful consideration should be
strength of the soil. As a limiting value for the distinc-
given to the choice of this parameter as it may signifi-
tion between weak and stiff soil, the angle of internal
cantly vary in in-situ conditions due to the construction
friction of 15 was used in PN-80/B-03322; the exact
procedure, soil disturbance and the effect of compaction
calculation model, which may be considered as a semi-
of the backfill.
empirical method, used in the analysis was based pri-
marily on the strength of the soil. For soils of low shear
strength ( 15), two modes dependant on the founda- Coverage by current European standards
tion depth were given. However, seldom were they used
when the backfill was not made of the local soft soil. EN 1997-1:2008 Eurocode 7
For soils of medium to high shear strength ( > 15), The ultimate limit state concerning uplift of any type of
only one model was presented, for a shallow spread a geotechnical structure is covered by the section 2
foundation. Basis of geotechnical design, and section 10 of Euro-
In the case of analytical approach, based on the code 7 Hydraulic failure. The former provides the
basic equilibrium model, if the soil is fine-grained (co- general distinction between different limit states and
hesive), a distinction between short-term resistance

Fig. 4. Possible failure mechanisms in uplift and calculation models depending on the strength of the soil and embedment depth
(Source: PN-80/B-03322; Pacheco et al. 2008)

146
 Bogusz, W. 2016. Ultimate limit state design of spread foundations in the case of uplift

basic rules for verification procedure in the case of up- EN 50341-1: 2012
lift (UPL); together with the normative Annex A, it also
The two limit states considered in EN 50341-1: 2012
provides partial factors (not modified in Polish National
are STR and GEO, as defined according to EN 1997-1:
Annex PN-EN 1997-1: 2008/Ap2: 2010), which are to
2008. However, in the case of uplift, resistance is treat-
be used in order to provide sufficient reliability level
ed also as GEO limit state, rather than UPL. The calcu-
assumed by the Eurocode. The general approach of
lation model used to determine the foundation resistance
Eurocode 7, to check the uplift resistance of the founda-
to uplift may consists of one of the following:
tion, makes its use flexible when different structures are
considered and different calculation models are used. an analytical model;
However, no specific calculation models are given for a semi-empirical model;
the spread foundation subjected to the uplift force. The numerical model.
choice of the model is left entirely at the geotechnical The standard allows for the use of models given in
engineers own discretion, either based on the models EN 1997-1, National Annexes, literature, and those
available in literature, previous experience or provided which have been used with satisfactory practical experi-
in complementary standards if they are available. ence. Furthermore, while using analytical model, EN
The verification is carried out by the comparison 50341-1: 2012 allows for the use of one of two design
of the design value of the combination of destabilising approaches presented in Eurocode 7; either DA2 or
permanent and vertical actions, Vdst,d, with the sum of DA3. An example of an analytical and a semi-empirical
the design value of the stabilising permanent actions and model is given in informative annex M. However, the
the design value of any additional resistance to uplift, proposed resistance factors, r, are associated with the
according to the inequality: specific calculation models, without any value given for
provided analytical model.
Vdst ,d Gstb,d + Rd , (4) The informative Annex M to EN 50341-1: 2012
contains sample analytical models for uplift resistance
where: Gstb,d design value of stabilising permanent calculation. Presented models are applicable for con-
vertical action (G,stb = 0,90); Rd design value of any crete stepped block footings in soils. The only two cases
additional resistance to uplift (R = 1,251,40, depend- considered are for neat excavation with vertical walls,
ing on the source of the resistance). with (case a) or without (case b) an undercut. The ulti-
The design value of the combination of destabilis- mate limit state of a foundation shall be verified as:
ing permanent and variable vertical action, Vdst,d, is cal-
culated as: E u ,d Ru ,d , (6)

Vdst ,d = Gdst ,d + Qdst , d , (5) where: Eu,d the total design effect of actions on founda-
tions resulting from all the actions on the supports and
where: Gdst,d design value of destabilising permanent from the supports themselves, with partial factors included
action (G,dst = 1,00); Qdst,d design value of destabilis- in the calculation of actions on the supports, according to
ing variable action (Q,dst = 1,50). chapter 4 of the standard; Rd the design resistance of the
Additionally, according to Eurocode 7 application foundation, which may be calculated for the analytical
rule (2), paragraph 2.4.7.4, any additional resistance to model as:
uplift may be treated as a stabilising permanent action Design Approach 2:
(Gstb,d). While this possibility simplifies the design and
the UPL verification procedure, it raises the issue of Ru ,d = ( Rw + Rs ) / R , (7)
resulting difference in partial factors; in the case of
permanent destabilizing action without the variable where: Rw weight of the foundation and the soil
component, the equivalent global safety factor in uplift above the foundation; Rs uplift side resistance; R
can be as low as 1,11. the partial factor applied to foundation uplift re-
In the case of the foundations used for transmis- sistance (value not specified in the standard).
sion power lines, further complications result from the Design Approach 3:
distinction of permanent and variable actions. In most
cases, the structural design of a support structure, Ru ,d = Rw + Rs / M , (8)
i.e. lattice tower with separate footings, will result in
design value of loads acting on these foundations; quite where: M the partial factor applied to the ground
often, no distinction is made between permanent or properties (1,25 for short-term conditions, 1,40
variable actions, much as whether a specific load acts as for long-term conditions).
a stabilising or destabilising action. Even a self-weight Contrary to IEEE (2001) guidelines, the EN
of the conductor (an overhead line) can act as a stabilis- 50341-1: 2012 standard does not differentiate the shear
ing permanent action in the case of mid-line tower, strength with the quality of compaction of the backfill.
while destabilising in the case of terminal or heavy- An assumption is made that the backfill density and its
angle towers. angle of shearing resistance are equivalent to those of
the native soil if the backfill has been composed of the
same soil and is well compacted. No guidance is pre-

147
 Bogusz, W. 2016. Ultimate limit state design of spread foundations in the case of uplift

sented concerning the cohesion, the undrained shear loss of revenue and can have social implications. The
strength or the parameters of compaction. In practice, coordination of the strength of the individual compo-
this simplification can result in underestimation of shear nents has two main objectives:
strength of well compacted loose sands or overestima- minimising the possibility of cascading failure;
tion in the case of overconsolidated soils. Furthermore, reducing to a minimum the repair time and cost
the validity of the design assumptions will depend great- of a failure.
ly on the quality of execution of the compaction at the A proper design of a sequence of failure requires
construction site, requiring thorough supervision and that the component with the lowest reliability level
verification. should introduce the least secondary load effects in case
Additionally to the analytical model proposed in of failure. As the failure of the foundation will result in
annex M, a semi-empirical model for resistance estima- the failure of the entire structure, and will require the
tion is also proposed. In the case of separate stepped most time for repairs, the foundations should be as-
block foundations, the uplift force is resisted by the self- signed a higher reliability level, as it should be the last
weight of the foundation and the weight of the soil en- component of the structure to fail.
closed by the angle of earth frustum. This model is simi-
lar to the cone or wedge model presented in IEEE Guide Comparison of the overall factors of safety
(2001). EN 50341-1: 2012 proposes the resistance factor
of 1,10 while using this method. In order to evaluate the influence of partial safety fac-
The methods proposed in the annex M are the sim- tors proposed in the European standards and used in
plified versions of the models available in the literature, practice, a simple comparison with evaluation of result-
other standards and guidelines (i.e. IEEE 2001). In most ing overall factor of safety (OFS) is presented in Ta-
cases, they may be used without further consideration ble 1. The use of an analytical model (shear method)
for additional modes of failure. Other calculation mod- was assumed as it involves factors for both, self-weight
els, such as presented in PN-80/B-03322, can also be and additional resistances. Basically, with analytical
used in the design of spread foundations for support approach, both standards tackle the verification of uplift
structures. However, the use of appropriate partial fac- ultimate limit strength in similar way, based on the equi-
tors for the resistance is necessary, which would require librium model. The main differences are noticeable in the
the calibration of the method. No guidance is given for resulting safety level expressed as overall factor of safety.
the use of numerical models. Both standards, EN 1997-1: 2008 and EN 50431-1:
What is of significant importance, the EN 50341-1: 2012, offer similar levels of reliability. In the case of Euro-
2012 standard introduces the concept of strength coor- code 7, a significant difference can be noticed between
dination, following the common practice in design of lower and upper bound results; it is an effect of higher
overhead power lines. The failure of a single support partial factor for variable destabilising actions then in
structure in a transmission line, often being a part of a EN 50341-1: 2012 and PN-EN 50341-3-22: 2010. Due
critical infrastructure, can have significant financial to the lack of the resistance factor for analytical method
consequences; more importantly than the cost of repairs presented in Annex M of EN 50341-1: 2012, two values
alone, the interruption in power transfer can result in were considered.

Table 1. Comparison of the overall factors of safety (global safety factors) resulting from the use of different approaches
in conjunction with analytical methods
Partial factors of safety Overall
Standard Variant permanent destabi- variable destabilis- permanent stabi- resistance, Factor of
lising action, G,dst ing actions, Q,dst lising action, G,stb R or M Safety2)
distinction is made
between Gstb,d and 1,25 1,18 1,77
EN 1997-1: Rd drained
2008 distinction is made 1,00 1,50 0,90
UPL ULS between Gstb,d and 1,40 1,26 1,88
Rd undrained
Rd treated as Gstb,d 1,11 1,67
1,10 1,21 1,43
EN 50341-1: DA23)
1,40 1,54 1,82
2012 1,10 1) 1,301)
DA3 drained 1,25 1,30 1,53
GEO ULS 0,901)
DA3 undrained 1,40 1,38 1,63
1)
values introduced by the PN-EN 50341-3-22: 2010 standard, the National Normative Annex to the previous version of the EN 50341-1,
the draft for the NNA for the current version is at the consultation stage and the partial factors for actions will be differentiated for three
reliability levels.
2) the lower boundary has been calculated for permanent destabilising actions only, while the upper boundary for the variable destabilising

actions, the actual overall factor of safety will depend on the permanent/variable ratio; furthermore, the OFS has been calculated under
the assumption of equal distribution of the characteristic resistance between the permanent stabilizing actions and additional resistance.
3)
The partial safety factor for the resistance is applied to the sum of the permanent stabilising actions and additional resistances; the com-
parison was made for the range of 1,101,40 as the value for the analytical method is not given in the standard.

148
 Bogusz, W. 2016. Ultimate limit state design of spread foundations in the case of uplift

To address the issue of resulting overall factor of ard. However, different models, like those presented in
safety, as well as to satisfy the conditions of required PN-80/B-03322, can be used as well if appropriate par-
strength coordination, in practical applications, the partial tial factors are applied.
factors can be further modified by the design specifications The analysis presented in the article acts as a pre-
provided by the investor or the power line operator. This liminary study for future research concerning the sub-
approach was chosen by the PSE (2014), the largest Polish ject of the design of spread foundations resisting uplift.
power lines operator, which published an annex to its spec- Especially, the possibility of calibration of the method
ification, requiring the design of the spread foundation used in Poland so far (PN-80/B-03322: 1980) will be
loaded in uplift with the resistance factor of 1,40 for design taken into consideration as the next step, based on mod-
approach DA2* used in Poland (PN-EN 1997-1: el studies, back-analysis and numerical modelling. Ad-
2008/Ap2: 2010). According to the comparison presented ditionally, as the use of numerical methods for uplift
in table 1, this results in overall factor of safety between resistance calculation is not covered in any of the pre-
1,541,82, based on the ratio of permanent to variable load. sented standards, it will also be considered for future
Its upper bound gives the reliability level comparable to the research. The finite element method can be used for
one required by the Eurocode 7 in UPL, while the lower sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of specific
bound exceeds that level, indirectly addressing the issue of factors and uncertainties, as well as to analyse the ser-
strength coordination. viceability limit state in uplift.
Caution is advised in the case of permanent uplift
load on a spread foundation. Eurocode 7, as well as
EN 50341-1: 2012 standard, offers lower safety margin References
when permanent load governs the design. However, EN 1997-1: 2008. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design Part 1:
Pacheco et al. (2008) recommends overall factors of safety General rules.
of three for permanent, and two for variable load, when EN 50341-1: 2012. Overhead electrical lines exceeding AC
uplift resistance of a foundation is considered. Estimated 1 kV Part 1: General requirements Common
(Table 1) overall factors of safety for variable actions are specifications.
close to that recommendations. For permanent uplift load EPRI TR-105000 Project 1493-04 Final Report. July 1995.
the tendency is opposite. Instead of the increase in the Reliability-based design of foundations for transmission
factor of safety, both standards offer lower values. line structures. New York.
Eskom. 2005. The planning, design & construction of
overhead power lines. Johannesburg: Crown Publi-
Conclusions and proposal cations.
IEEE Std 691-2001. IEEE guide for transmission structure
The approaches presented by different standards show foundation design and testing. The Institute of Electrical
similarities in the assumptions concerning predicted and Electronics Engineers, Inc. New York, 2001.
modes of failures. While basic equilibrium model is http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2001.93372
considered for verification of uplift resistance, the fac- Kulhawy, F. H.; Stewart, H. E.; Trautmann, Ch. H. 2003.
tors affecting its value are similar regardless of the On the uplift behavior of spread foundations, in Magnan,
standard in use. The differences between them result Droniuc (Eds.). Fondations superficielles. Paris: Presses
mainly from the value and the application of partial de lENPC/LCPC.
factors, assumed simplifications and disregard for some Li, X.; Tian, Y.; Gaudin, Ch.; Cassidy, M. J. 2015.
of the factors that may have significant impact on pre- Comparative study of the compression and uplift of
dicted uplift resistance. shallow foundations, Computers and Geotechnics 69:
The issues of the reliability and an assumed calcu- 3845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.04.018
lation model should not be considered separately. The Pacheco, M. P.; Danziger, F. A. B.; Pereira Pinto, C. 2008.
former is often guaranteed by the partial safety factors Design of shallow foundations under tensile loading for
used in the design to take into the account uncertainties transmission line towers: an overview, Engineering
Geology 101: 226235.
that may affect the considered limit state; while the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.06.002
latter should be accompanied by the description of the
PN-80/B-03322: 1980. Electrical overhead lines. Foundations
limitations of the assumed model. of structure supports. Static calculations and design.
Eurocode 7 offers the most general verification for
PN-EN 1997-1: 2008/Ap2: 2010. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical
any type of geotechnical structure subjected to uplift; it design Part 1: General rules. National Annex.
considers mainly the possibility of a hydraulic failure,
PN-EN 50341-3-22: 2010. Overhead electrical lines
where uplift is caused by a water pressure acting as a exceeding AC 45 kV Part 3: Set of National Normative
permanent destabilising action. On the contrary, the EN Aspects.
50341-1: 2012 provides more specific guidance; while it PSE. 2014. Standard Technical Specification. Overhead
might not offer the best available calculation method, it Power Line 400kV. Annex 11. Design of the foundations
may be the most appropriate with regard to current of structure supports for electric overhead lines based on
standard of supervision and execution of construction European standards. Konstancin-Jeziorna (in Polish).
works. Most spread foundation used for support struc-
tures of overhead power lines will fulfil the conditions
for shallow foundation model suggested by that stand-

149