395

INVESTIGATION ON THE STRUCTURAL INTERACTION

BETWEEN
TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS AND FOUNDATIONS

Working Group
B2.08

October 2009
 WG B2.08

Investigation on the structural interaction

between
Transmission line towers and foundations

Contributors

J.B.G.F. da Silva, Convener (BR), R.C.R. Menezes, TF leader (BR), L. Binette (CA),
G. Gheorghita (RO), J. D. Serrano (ZA), D. Hughes, secretary (GB),M. Vanner (WG-07) (GB),
L. Kempner (US)

Convenor: J.B.G.F. da Silva (Brazil) Secretary: D. Hughes (United Kingdom) Regular members:
L. Binette (Canada), J. Fernadez (Spain), A. Fuchs (Germany), R. Jansson (Sweden), L. Kempner (United
States), D.I. Lee (Korea), N. Masaoka (Japan), G. Nesgard (Norway), V. Numminen (Finland), L. Pellet
(France), J. Peralta (Portugal), R.C. Ramos de Menezes (Brazil), J. Rogier (Belgium), J.D. Serrano (R. South
Africa), E. Thorsteins (Iceland), S. Villa (Italy), Corresponding members: C.G. Alamo (Venezuela),
G. Brown (Australia), G. Gheorghita (Romania), R. Guimarães (Brazil), H Hawes (Australia), C. Laub (Czech
Republic), F. Legeron (Canada), T. Leskinen (Finland), M. Ishac (Canada), J.M. Menéndez (Cuba), F. Meza
Rosso (Bolivia), K. Nieminen (Finland), R. Peixoto (Brazil), J. Prieto (Spain), C. Thorn (UK), J. Toth
(Canada), K. Van Dam (Belgium), M. Vanner (UK)

Copyright © 2009
“Ownership of a CIGRE publication, whether in paper form or on electronic support only infers right of use for personal
purposes. Are prohibited, except if explicitly agreed by CIGRE, total or partial reproduction of the publication for use
other than personal and transfer to a third party; hence circulation on any intranet or other company network is
forbidden”.

Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any responsibility, as to
the accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum
extent permitted by law”.

ISBN: 978-2-85873-082-7
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 4 

2.  MOTIVATION ................................................................................................................. 4 
3.  TECHNICAL BASIS ....................................................................................................... 5 
3.1.  INDUSTRY PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES ............................................................. 5 
3.2.  LIMIT STATE METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 6 
3.3.  COMPARISONS BETWEEN FIELD TESTS AND ESTIMATES.......................................................... 8 
4.  THEORETICAL EXERCISE ........................................................................................... 9 
5.  EXPERIMENTAL TESTS ............................................................................................. 10 
5.1.  DESCRIPTION OF THE PROTOTYPES ......................................................................................... 10 
5.2.  ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ....................................................................................... 12 
5.3.  TESTS…… .................................................................................................................................. 12 
5.4.  TEST RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 13 
6.  ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ......................................................................................... 14 
7.  CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 15 
8.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ 17 
9.  REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 17 
FOUNDATION DISPLACEMENT TESTS...................................................................................... 18 
ANNEX A: FOUNDATION DISPLACEMENT TESTS - TEST REPORT .............................. 18 
A.1 – TEST PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................. 20 
A.2 – FOUNDATION MOVEMENT AJUSTABLE DEVICE ........................................................ 21 
A.3 – TEST RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 22 
A.4 – BAR LOAD VERSUS DISPLACEMENT GRAPHS ................................................................. 24 
ANNEX B: ESTIMATED VERSUS MEASURED LOADS ON MONITORED BARS ............ 29 
B.1 - MONITORED BARS ................................................................................................................. 30 
B.2 – ESTIMATED VERSUS MEASURED LOADS .......................................................................... 31 

1
 TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Tolerances for tower erection.......................................................................... 6 

Figure 2: Foundation movement versus Foundation Capacity .................................... 8 
Figure 3: Configuration of the three towers tested in South Africa .......................... 11 
Figure 4: : Tower prototypes on the Test Pad .............................................................. 11 
Figure 5: Study to determine test displacements ......................................................... 12 
Figure 6: Detail of a strain gaged member ................................................................... 13 
Figure 7: Device designed for application of displacements on tower ....................... 13 
Figure 8: Calibration of a strain gaged member.......................................................... 14 
Figure 9: Test results versus estimate ............................................................................ 14 
Figure 10: Estimates with bolt slippage models ........................................................... 15 

2
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Allowable Construction Tolerances ................................................................. 6 

Table A.3.1 - Displacement (mm) versus Bar Loads (KN) .......................................... 22 
Table A.3.2 – Displacements (mm) versus Bars Loads (KN) ...................................... 23 

3
1. INTRODUCTION

This paper reports the studies made by the joint task force between the working groups Cigre
SCB2.07 and B2.08 on the structural interaction between transmission line tower and foundations.
The main purpose of this task force is the study of the tolerances of the foundation displacements
and their impact on the tower capacity. One of the main motivations of this research is the recurring
issue about which foundation displacements could be tolerated in order not to compromise the
performance of the towers, from the point of view of the design methodology based on the Limit
States (ultimate and serviceability). Based on such motivation, WG B2.08 developed a research
project to answer some questions often present in the discussions agenda on this issue. Within this
context, this paper approaches the tower-foundation interaction through a discussion that can be
summarized as follows: firstly, a basis is established by discussing the usual limits, the problem
under the point of view of the limit state methodology of IEC 60826, and a comparison between
theoretical and experimental data on the foundations response. After that, the experiments
performed by WG B2.08 in South Africa in 2001 are presented, when vertical displacements (uplift
and settlement) were applied to a tower whose structural response was carefully monitored. This
paper presents a description of the prototype, of the displacement application system, of the
monitoring system, and of the estimated structural response, performed by several designers.
Additionally, this paper reports the research efforts to determine the structural response by using
more complex structural models, aiming at improving the estimation capacity of the experimental
results. The research adopted structural analysis models varying within a wide range of complexity,
from a simple static linear analysis of truss elements to an analysis with slippage on the joints
represented by non-linear relations between strength and displacement. At the end, a report is made
on the achievements of the research, presenting some important conclusions such as, for example,
evidence that the slippage in the bolted joints of the towers plays an essential role of
“relieving/dissipating” the impact of the foundation displacements on the structural performance of
the towers. This aspect, when accounted for in the structural analysis models, provides for an
excellent correlation between predictions and experimental results.

2. MOTI VATION

Transmission Line Design Standards usually make no reference to allowable foundation movements
due to their impact on the performance of the structure.

4
During the past 25 years, CIGRÉ’s Working Groups B2.07 and B2.08 have been continuously
dealing with the issue on the interaction between towers and foundations. Particularly, the issue of
greatest interest is “which foundation displacement can be allowed under the point of view of the
ultimate and serviceability limit states”. However, the approach of this issue includes other
important questions, such as:

 Which limits are usually practiced by the industry?

 What is the magnitude of the displacements the foundation can withstand considering the soil
response?
 What is the magnitude of the displacements the foundation can withstand considering the
structural response of the foundation itself?
 Which are the tower characteristics that can cause the most important impacts on the
establishment of the displacement limits (tower height, base width, structural configuration –
whether isostatic, hyperstatic, etc.)?
 How can this interaction be accounted for?
 What is the Ultimate Limit State in this interaction?
 What is the Serviceability Limit State in this interaction?
 What is the most critical movement (vertical, horizontal, or a combination of both?)
 Within this context, the article presents a summarized report on the progress achieved as a
result of contributions made by several professionals in the Cigré B2.07 and B2.08 groups.

3. TECHNICAL BASIS

3.1. Industry practical Construction Tolerances

As previously mentioned, Transmission Line Standards do not specifically refer to the foundation
movement issue, relating it to the behavior of the structures. So, OHL experts have continuously
discussed which limits to adopt. For example, B. Schmidt[1], based on investigations about the
issue, stated that “the tower owns a certain intelligence to make up for part of the strength due to
foundation movements caused by the bolts slippage.”

Regarding erection, the foundations are allowed some tolerances, such as those suggested, for
example, by F. Villa [2], (Table 1 and Figure 1):

5
 Table 1: Allowable Construction Tolerances
Tolerance Allowed values
Base width Δx ≤ ± 0,1 % length of width length B
Diagonal distance Δd ≤ ± 0,1 % length of diagonal length D
Stub level Δz ≤ ± 0,1 % length of width/2 (B/2)
Batter axis Δr ≤ 0,5 % length of stub above the concrete top length L
Angular distortion Δγ ≤ ± 0,50 (degree) on stub angle twist angle γ
Tower distortion Δδ ≤ ± 30 (degree) on centre line
Tower eccentricity Δe ≤ ± 0.5% length of diagonal length D

Figure 1: Tolerances for tower erection

3.2. Limit State Methodology

The limit state methodology allows an appropriate basis for decision making about different design
alternatives in terms of reliability or its complement, the risk. Additionally, such basis also allows
optimized designs without reduction in reliability. According to this concept, the transmission line
is considered as a system whose “states” are illustrated as follows:

6
Where:
 The Ultimate Limit State is related to the ultimate capacity, that is, to the total and/or partial
failure or collapse of the system and/or of a component, which, in this approach, means failure of
the tower or the foundation;
 The Serviceability Limit State is related to the limit from which the tower or the foundation
needs to be repaired.

The Ultimate and Serviceability Limit States are associated with the function of the Transmission
Line and with the durability of its materials. Under this approach, the Serviceability Limit State
(the Use Limit) is the limit from which the transmission line may be subject to a temporary
interruption for repairs. On the other hand, the Ultimate Limit State is the limit from which the
transmission line loses completely its power transmission capability.

Regarding the performance of the foundation, any displacement may cause a reduction in the
ultimate capacity of the tower and/or in the ultimate capacity of the foundation itself. However, it
should be assumed that, the magnitude of this reduction in terms of the tower strength capacity,
will depend on its characteristics such as its stiffness.

Therefore, the establishment of these displacement limits shall be based on the interaction between
tower and foundation, and it shall be based on the Limit State philosophy.
According to IEC 60826, the general design equation is as follows:

QT  R RC

Where:
 QT is the effect of the load associated with a return period equal to T years;
 R is the strength factor that considers the (S) strength coordination (or preferential failure
sequence), (N) number of components submitted to the maximum load intensity, (Q) difference

7
in quality between the test and the actual application, and (C) the difference between the actual
exclusion limit and the limit e=10%, being R = S N Q C,
 RC: Nominal or characteristic strength

So, after the establishment of the general formulation, the calibration of models is required,
together with the assessment of strength coefficients.

3.3. Comparisons between Field Tests and Estimates

Regarding the application of the IEC 60826 methodology, capacity estimation models have been
calibrated through the comparison with test results. Examples of these efforts are those carried out
by WG B2.07[3], reported for a shallow foundation submitted to uplift, which may be exemplified
by figure 2.

140

130
U3
120
Ultimate load
110 34mm, 123%
Working U2
100 Load
90 Working Limit (10mm) 100%

80 U1 Wc = Weight of Concrete as Ratio

70 Elastic Limit (2.28mm)

72.22%
60
Working Load Design Models
50 M 90 CoV%
40 U f30 1.0583 14.55
U VDEU 1.2050 15.03
30
U 0 (24.26%)
U K700D 1.0425 14.72
20
Wc (13.84%)
10 Sample size: 9
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

Figure 2: Foundation movement versus Foundation Capacity

8
From these studies, expressions similar to those shown below can be established. For example,
supposing that the limit displacement for the service condition is about 10mm, the design equation
for the foundation “serviceability limit state” would be:
U QT < RUf30
U QT < S x N x Q x C xUf30
0.90 QT < 0.93 x 0.98 x 1.0 x 0.9768 Uf30
that is,
QT < 0.9892 Uf30

For the “ultimate limit state”, it would be as follows:

0.90 QT < 0.93 x 0.98 x 1.0 x 1.3138 Uf30
QT < 1.33044 Uf30
Where:
 QT: is the effect of the load associated with a return period equal to T years;
 Uf30: the foundation capacity evaluated by the inverted cone methodology, with a 30o angle.

These expressions already take into consideration the failure coordination, or preferential failure
sequence, between tower and foundation. Additionally, it should be clear that these expressions are
valid for this specific case. Similar expressions can be established for other cases with relative
conceptual easiness, in view of the clear logic of the IEC 60826 philosophy.

4. THEORETICAL EXERCISE

In this context, the following numeral simulation has been proposed to be carried out within the
scope of the interaction between SC B2.07 and B2.08:

a) Select a typical representative suspension structure;

b) Analyze the tower response in terms of strength due to representative loading cases, such as
extreme transversal wind;
c) Simulate the foundation movements in some specific soils as result of the loading:

 vertical settlement;
 uplift;

9
 horizontal displacement.

Values such as 25mm for vertical displacements, uplift or settlement, and 10mm for horizontal
displacement, should be taken into account as they represent “the maximum practical accepted
limits” as reported by the WG07 and/or WG08 TF members [4].
d) Evaluate the influence of these movements on the tower and on the foundation structure;
e) Extend the conclusions of this exercise to other conditions: different characteristics for
towers; types of soils and foundations.

Part of these studies has already been carried out, especially those regarding the theoretical and
analytical evaluation of the problem, relating them to the tests performed hereafter described.

5. EXPERIMENTAL TESTS

This study was associated with another research project already conducted by WG B2.08
concerning the influence of towers modeling. Therefore, the theoretical study about the influence of
the foundation movements was initially carried out on the three tower prototypes tested in South
Africa (Figure 3).

5.1. Description of the Prototypes

The three tower prototypes tested in South Africa were especially designed to study the influence
of modeling and the estimated structural response. Figure 3 shows those silhouettes, while Figure 4
shows the pictures of the towers on the test pad.
The three towers are visually almost identical, but with slight differences in the bracing. These
differences represent typical bracing alternatives frequently adopted by industry practice.
Prototypes 2 and 2A are solutions with a higher degree of internal hyperstaticity. This way, since
balance can be established in several different load paths, the towers are expected to present
different behaviors, as well as foundation reactions. Prototype 2 was chosen to be tested simulating
foundations displacements due to its degree of hyperstaticity as compared with structure number 1,
which is isostatic. It was also decided to simulate the foundation movements in just one tower leg,
since this “differential movement” seemed to be more critical as result of the theoretical analysis.

10
The displacements ranged from 0 to 25mm of uplift and corresponding unloading to 0mm. From
this point, a settlement down to 25mm was simulated, as well as the corresponding unloading up to
0mm again.

Figure 3: Configuration of the three towers tested in South Africa

Figure 4: Tower prototypes on the Test Pad

11
5.2. Estimated structural response

The structural response was analyzed in order to establish a member force value to be imposed on
the structure leg. The purpose of these calculations was to determine displacements that would
allow a safety margin during the tests, considering the presence of workers operating devices
during the application of the displacements. The results of these calculations can be summarized in
figure 5 below. This figure shows that bar F4 (main member) achieves its ultimate capacity (that is,
use factor equal to -1, in compression) close to 46mm of foot displacement. Considering this result,
the limit of 25mm was established during the tests, as this value is adopted in many countries
around the world as the maximum acceptable limit by industry practices.

Figure 5: Study to determine test displacements

5.3. Tests

A strain-gage system was developed by TSI – Technology Services International, ESKOM

Transmission Group, to monitor the forces on the bars. By this system, axial forces and bending
moments could be measured and observed in real time. Figure 6 shows details of a strain gaged
member.

12
 Figure 6: Detail of a strain gaged member

Figure 7: Device designed for application of displacements on tower

A special device was designed for the application of the displacement at the tower foot, as shown
in figure 7.

The complete strain gaged member was calibrated under the unloaded bar condition (figure 8),
establishing the proportionality constants for determining member strain (load) and then, after the
erection of the tower, “zeroing” the values when the external loads were not acting. Annex A
contains the complete test results.

5.4. Test Results

Some of the test results, as compared with the corresponding predictions, can be seen in the
following figures (figure 9). In these figures, bars F4 is a main member, bar B11L and T12L are
longitudinal diagonals, and bar P3L is a tower leg diagonal. In Annex B are shown the “estimated
versus measured” loads on all monitored bars for the uplift test.

13
The test results show a general trend that the measured values are reasonably lower than those
calculated using linear models, that are currently used in design practice.

Figure 8: Calibration of a strain gaged member

Figure 9: Test results versus estimate

6. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

These test results lead to some conclusions, as follows:

14
 Regarding the structural response of the main members, the current structural analysis shows
that, due to the uplift movement of the foundation, the corresponding main member would be under
compression. Analogously, when the foundation is subject to a vertical settlement, the
corresponding main member would be under tension.

 So, it can be inferred that when an uplift displacement occurs in the foundation, the
phenomenon will be associated with a significant compression force. From this behavior shown in
the above figures, it can be concluded that the displacement causes a “relief” on the butt joints. A
similar and analogous behavior can be described for the opposite movement: it can be inferred that
when the foundation experiences an uplift, the phenomenon will be associated with a significant
tension. The foundation movement would cause a “relief” on the bar forces. Neglecting the
reliefing affect results in conservative forces.

 During the tests, it could be observed that the bar loads were significantly lower than those
calculated using a linear-elastic structural analysis. This experiment motivated the development of
more sophisticated models to take bolt slippage into consideration. These more sophisticated
models, developed by Kaminski Jr. [5], provided a better representation of the results, as shown in
the figures below. In general, the bolt slippage occurred in the connections also acts as a “relief” of
the member loads due to the foundation movement.

Figure 10: Estimates with bolt slippage models

With these more sophisticated models, like those shown in Figure 10, the bolt slippage allows
better estimates of the tower response.

7. CONCLUSIONS

Important conclusions can be derived from this experience. Among the most important ones are:

15
 The calculations and practices currently adopted by the industry, even if proved to be a little
conservative are confirmed as valid.

 The structural behavior, as well as the loads on bars due to those practical foundation
displacements as accepted by the industry, can be understood and estimated.

 Using refined structural analysis models and calculations methods, for example, those that
take into account the impact of the bolt slippage on joints, the calculated load values on bars
approached very much those measured during the tests. Those analyses were done by Kaminski
Jr.[5], and can be seen on the graphs of the figure 10.

 Looking at the graphs of the Figure 9, it can be seen that all the initially estimated values for
bar loads were larger than those measured. The current industry calculation practices are, generally,
on the conservative side. The real tower behavior and accommodation movements could be seen
during the tests, and assessed by post-tests calculations using refined analysis models. The non-
linear analysis that take into account bolts slippage on joints simulate well what happens when the
structure experiences small foundations displacements. Those calculations can be seen on graphs of
Figure 10. The bolts slippage acts as “relievers” on the main members loads and, so, the graphs
show better calibrated values.

 This can be understood as if the possible slippage on joints (especially on main members) and
the detailing clearances on all the holes (1/16” or 1.5mm) provide the structure a relieving
condition here named “self internal relieving system”. This could be one of the important reasons
for explaining why measured values are always smaller than those estimated.

 Aiming to extrapolate the results to other towers and/or soils, it could be expected even better
“relieving” effect. This is because soils are never so rigid like the test base used on South Africa
tests and even due to the fact that Cigré TF4 Prototype 2 had only one main member splice-joint. It
is expected that many main members’ splice-joints (real towers), can increase the “self internal
relieving” action.

16
 As said before, a better predictable structural behavior regarding foundation displacements is
also expected by prototype 1, than the other towers which are less rigid and having smaller degree
of hyperstaticity.

 The joint task SCB2.07 and B2.08 believes that those inedited results can contribute to the
understanding of the real behavior of the structure during small foundations displacements and can
also stimulate further studies.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
WG08 acknowledges the support received from: Eskom, ABB, Roy Macey, Mark Newby, S.J.
Madibu, M. Megale de Carvalho.
The convener also thanks K. Papailiou and E. O’Connor, SCB2 official reviewers, for their work
and comments.

9. REFERENCES
[ 1 ] SCHMIDT,B., Contribution to Cigré SCB2 Open Session, 1986.

[ 2 ] VILLA, F., Effects of interacting construction deviation on 500kV power line structures,
International Conference on Power Transmission: Planning, Design, Performance and Operations,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

[ 3 ] BUCKLEY,M., Reliability Based Design of OHL Foundations - Cigré Session 1994 nr. 22-
203, and, Vertical Movement of Tower Foundation Under Load(draft), doc. 22-98(WG08)12.

[ 4 ] Foundation Installation – An Overview, Cigré SCB2.07 Technical Brochure nr. 308.

[5] Influence of the Hyperstatic Modeling on the Behavior of Transmission Line Lattice
Structures, Cigré SCB2.08 Technical Brochure.

17
 FOUNDATION DISPLACEMENT TESTS

ANNEX A: TEST REPORT

SC B2.08 TF: TOWER FOUNDATION INTERCONNECTION

18
 LINE ENGINEERING SERVICES
TOWER TESTING STATION , ROSHERVILLE
JOHANNESBURG , GAUTENG PROVINCE
SOUTH AFRICA

TEST REPORT NUMBER : SC 00 / 542

PROJECT NUMBER: RO - 423

TOWER TYPE : " STRUCTURE 2 "

TOWER DETAIL : ABB DRAWINGS: ( T - 47792 TRANSVERSAL FACE )

( T - 47793 LONGITUDINAL FACE )

MANUFACTURER : ABB Asea Brown Boveri

,
CLIENT : CIGRE

PROJECT: WORKING GROUP 08 - TASK FORCE 7

INFLUENCE OF HYPERSTATIC MODELLING -
FOUNDATION DISPLACEMENT
,
CONSULTANT : CIGRE

COPYRIGHT IN THIS REPORT IS RESERVED. NO PUBLICATION

OR DISSEMINATION OF ITS CONTENTS IS ALLOWED WITHOUT
WRITTEN PERMISSION.

19
A.1 – TEST PROCEDURE

TEST 1 STRUCTURE 2 FOUNDATION DISPLACEMENT

The Foundation on leg No: 1 of the structure was raised in small increments from 0 to 25mm above
ground level, and then, adjusted in the opposite direction to 25mm below ground level, and back to
ground level. Then, the joints were loosened and tightened.
Throughout the whole test, the Strain Gages measured the strain in the structure members, which
can be identified by the drawing below:

T11T

AT BACK OF
T11L
STRUCTURE

T12T AT SIDE OF
STRUCTURE
F2B

T12L

T13L

B11T

B11L

F4

P3L

VERTICAL
ADJUSTMENT

PROJECT CODE - RO-423

20
A.2 – FOUNDATION MOVEMENT AJUSTABLE DEVICE
ADJUSTABLE FOOT USED DURING THE FOUNDATION DISPLACEMENT TEST

21
A.3 – TEST RESULTS

FOUNDATION UPLIFT TESTS

(mm) F2B P3L F4 T12L T13L T12T B11L T11L B11T T11T
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 -9074 1610 -11171 559 541 497 -1072 -904 893 -1741
3.5 -11925 2052 -14574 626 702 472 -1393 -1157 1173 -1779
5 -18182 2546 -23384 131 1233 306 -2295 -1334 1753 -1421
6.5 -24329 3058 -31272 -211 858 328 -3136 -1666 2286 -675
8 -28277 3360 -36534 -296 854 272 -3749 -1881 2539 -534
10 -36239 3781 -47509 -858 351 -31 -4962 -2175 2977 908
11.5 -37091 3761 -49737 -959 306 -146 -5110 -2324 2997 1435
12.5 -38633 3888 -51974 -877 326 -284 -5360 -2524 3078 1349
14 -40866 4492 -55298 -744 396 -407 -5684 -2673 3205 1512
14.5 -42317 4715 -57421 -772 568 -478 -5872 -2836 3392 1643
15 -42950 5010 -58969 -708 860 -482 -5998 -3429 3349 1474
17 -44123 5929 -60553 -977 819 -314 -5971 -2685 3110 1612
18.5 -48683 7508 -66819 -1364 699 -125 -5816 -1797 2429 1255
19.5 -50191 7891 -69236 -1437 443 -3 -5446 -1614 2948 978
20.5 -53564 9412 -73895 -1708 108 221 -5493 -1445 3103 506
22 -54641 11037 -76256 -1861 -105 759 -5138 -1315 3953 206
23 -55486 11542 -77379 -1889 -79 846 -4986 -1400 4045 113
24 -56930 12422 -79731 -1888 -257 1228 -4403 -1009 4563 -138
25 -58747 13624 -82703 -1989 -393 1270 -4066 -658 4947 -492
24 -49585 10205 -70949 -1125 440 363 -3306 -1661 5528 470
23 -43890 7314 -63691 -702 933 216 -3408 -2425 6311 1343
21.5 -37411 3989 -55335 -168 1267 -346 -3074 -2909 6991 2373
20.5 -31651 977 -48066 292 1751 -865 -2746 -3444 7488 3022
18 -21063 -2094 -34551 1249 2622 -1755 -2334 -4461 8259 4098
15.5 -10763 -3970 -20673 2187 3442 -2691 -2315 -5539 8561 5398
14 -5158 -4377 -13287 2554 3737 -2915 -2445 -6134 8344 6032
13 1988 -5174 -3427 3212 4151 -3391 -2572 -6884 8378 6764
10 9346 -5799 5815 3870 4489 -3762 -2440 -7834 8819 7574
8 16310 -6057 14821 4533 5119 -4282 -2694 -8910 9356 8323
6 22879 -6151 23102 5053 5527 -4627 -3021 -9775 10043 9024
3.5 30764 -6608 34303 5738 6334 -5068 -3489 -10869 9821 10020
1.5 37094 -6915 42821 6263 6896 -5483 -3676 -11575 9908 10769
0 39234 -6904 46353 6397 7142 -5690 -3854 -11781 8949 10983
Table A.3.1 - Displacement (mm) versus Bar Loads (KN)

22
 FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT TESTS

(mm) F2B P3L F4 T12L T13L T12T B11L T11L B11T T11T
0 39234 -6904 46353 6397 7142 -5690 -3854 -11781 8949 10983
-2 47282 -9288 56558 7464 7611 -6226 -3374 -12770 9765 11358
-3.5 52464 -10733 63855 7943 8170 -6623 -3684 -13536 9238 11890
-5.5 53619 -12237 66670 7883 8314 -6710 -3981 -13483 7720 12612
-7.5 55491 -12741 69563 7971 8500 -6918 -4249 -13697 6930 13071
-9.5 58159 -12481 73793 8270 8791 -7169 -4591 -13851 6898 13550
-11.5 59920 -12568 76525 8164 9226 -7256 -4960 -14220 6698 13903
-13.5 61978 -12525 79781 8118 9634 -7420 -5675 -14504 6194 14273
-15 62787 -12803 81002 8164 9723 -7455 -5646 -14573 6101 14427
-17.5 64576 -13962 82679 8487 9730 -7324 -4936 -15043 7416 14580
-19.5 63678 -13835 81819 8413 9745 -7273 -5129 -14949 7836 14507
-20 62933 -13725 80785 8385 9390 -7152 -4847 -14743 8126 14498
-21.5 64624 -14403 82464 8524 9640 -7203 -4588 -15041 8600 14466
-22.5 65850 -15097 83833 8616 9746 -7229 -4576 -15186 8873 14628
-23.5 66991 -15938 86081 8800 9881 -7316 -4769 -15331 9254 14829
-25.5 70554 -17971 90845 9132 10184 -7489 -4522 -15989 10348 15183
-25 62506 -13773 80534 8466 9575 -6857 -4756 -15009 9924 14215
-24.5 56246 -11217 72327 8130 9115 -6303 -4758 -14269 9729 13394
-23 50064 -7818 64157 7611 8531 -5741 -4945 -13365 9183 12741
-20.5 39582 -2441 49895 6538 7815 -4954 -5041 -12109 8185 11398
-19 33991 -275 41725 6111 7409 -4470 -4460 -11420 7915 10661
-17 25873 2039 29647 5472 6761 -3864 -3482 -10595 7356 9502
-15.5 19460 2749 20325 4864 6383 -3336 -2977 -9943 7176 8606
-14 14215 3434 13259 4341 6071 -2947 -2803 -9208 6936 7940
-12.5 5590 3962 1389 3489 5592 -2307 -2441 -8337 6885 7029
-11.5 3718 3962 -1132 3296 5528 -2203 -2410 -8099 6765 6713
-10.5 -4103 4654 -11931 2550 5099 -1581 -2094 -7335 6374 5686
-7 -10263 4706 -20673 1787 4867 -1199 -1988 -6782 5911 4831
-5.5 -16290 4550 -29141 1171 4560 -836 -1912 -6217 6052 4168
-4.5 -22563 4557 -37856 724 4110 -412 -1808 -5557 6783 3358
0 -29739 3728 -48167 218 3465 159 -1682 -4837 8209 2466
0 1298 -2005 -575 1836 2014 -3147 -9998 -7956 1454 6260
0 -201 -2395 -2841 1776 1797 -2749 -9412 -8049 3061 6175
Table A.3.2 – Displacements (mm) versus Bars Loads (KN)

23
A.4 – BAR LOAD versus DISPLACEMENT GRAPHS

Member F2B

80000

60000

40000

20000
Forces (KN)

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-20000

-40000

-60000

-80000
Displacement (MM)

Member P3L

20000

15000

10000

5000
Force (KN)

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-5000

-10000

-15000

-20000
Displacement (mm)

24
 Member F4

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000
Force (KN)

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-20000

-40000

-60000

-80000

-100000
Displacement (mm)

Member T12L

10000

8000

6000
Force (KN)

4000

2000

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2000

-4000
Displacement (mm)

25
 Member T13L

12000

10000

8000
Force (KN)

6000

4000

2000

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2000
Displacement (mm)

Member T12T

2000

1000

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-1000

-2000
Force (KN)

-3000

-4000

-5000

-6000

-7000

-8000
Displacement (mm)

26
 Member B11L

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

-2000

-4000
Force (KN)

-6000

-8000

-10000

-12000
Displacement (mm)

Member T11L

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2000

-4000

-6000
Force (KN)

-8000

-10000

-12000

-14000

-16000

-18000
Displacement (mm)

27
 Member B11T

12000

10000

8000
Force (KN)

6000

4000

2000

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Displacement (mm)

Member T11T

18000

16000

14000
12000

10000
Force (KN)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2000

-4000
Displacement (mm)

28
 FOUNDATION UPLIFT TESTS

ANNEX B: 

ESTIMATED versus MEASURED LOADS ON MONITORED BARS

29
B.1 - MONITORED BARS

The bars that were strain gaged monitored during the foundation displacement tests can be seen in
the following drawing:

T11T

T11L

T12T
F2B

T12L
AT BACK OF
STRUCTURE

AT SIDE OF
STRUCTURE

T13L

B11T

B11L

F4

P3L

VERTICAL
ADJUSTMENT

PROJECT CODE - RO-423

30
B.2 – ESTIMATED versus MEASURED LOADS

UPLIFT DISPLACEMENT TEST

31
32
33
34
35