Article

Improved Performance of Connected Foundations for

Resilient Energy Transmission Infrastructure in
Soft Soils
Doohyun Kyung 1 , Daehong Kim 2 , Garam Kim 1 , Incheol Kim 1 and Junhwan Lee 1, *
Received: 9 September 2015; Accepted: 24 December 2015; Published: 30 December 2015
Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen
1 School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, 50, Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu,
Seoul 120-749, Korea; iamdh0630@yonsei.ac.kr (D.K.); mil4u@yonsei.ac.kr (G.K.);
skah3000@yonei.ac.kr (I.K.)
2 Korea Electric Power Corporation, 105, Munji-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34056, Korea; dhkim@kepco.co.kr
* Correspondence: Junlee@yonsei.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-2-2123-5796; Fax: +82-2-364-5300

Abstract: The connected foundation is an effective structural type of foundation that can improve
the sustainability of electrical transmission towers in soft soils to serve as a resilient energy supply
system. In this study, the performance of electrical transmission towers reinforced with connected
beams was investigated using a series of field load tests. Model transmission tower structures
were manufactured and adopted into the tests. Based on the load capacity mobilization and failure
mechanism, a criterion to define the load carrying capacity for connected foundation was proposed.
It was found that the performance of connected foundation varies with the mechanical property of
connection beam. The load capacity and differential settlement increased and decreased, respectively,
with increasing connection beam stiffness. Such effect of connection beam was more pronounced
as the height of load application point or tower height (zh ) increases. Based on the load test results,
a design model was proposed that can be used to evaluate the sustainable performance and load
carrying capacity of connected foundations. Field load tests with prototype transmission tower
structure models were conducted to check and confirm the performance of connected foundation
and the proposed design method.

Keywords: resilient energy infrastructure system; electrical transmission tower structures; connected
foundation; soft soils; field load test; load capacity; differential settlement

1. Introduction
The transmission tower structure is important infrastructure for the electric power supply system,
which consists of conductors, overhead power lines, steel-lattice tower and lower foundation parts.
In particular, lower foundation parts are key component to guarantee the sustainability and continuous
serviceability of the entire transmission system. Various types of transmission tower foundations have
been used depending on load and soil conditions [1–4]. When design loads are relatively small and
ground condition is sufficiently favorable, inverted T-foundations or embedded footings are preferred.
Deep foundations, such as piers and piles, are used when the towers are constructed in steep slope
and hill areas, or in soft soils such as clays and weak reclaimed deposits [5].
Upon continuous and dramatic increases in electricity demand, it has been a critical issue
to maintain more sustainable and resilient energy supply system against various unfavorable
environments such as weak ground condition. A possible option to increase the sustainability of
electric transmission tower system is the use of complementary structural components that connect
individual foundations placed at each corner of the tower. The connected foundation does not alter

Sustainability 2016, 8, 30; doi:10.3390/su8010030 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2016, 8, 30 2 of 15

the original foundation configuration with no additional environmental destruction. Introducing

connected foundation, increases in the stability of the entire structure is expected with the effects of
improved mechanical
Sustainability 2016, 8, performance
30 and more sustainable energy supply capability [1,6].
Design guidelines of connected foundations for transmission tower structures can be found in
TEPCOconnected
[6] and IEEE foundation,
[1]. In increases
TEPCO [6],in the stability ofbeams
connection the entire
thatstructure is expected
are placed between with the effects ofare
foundations
improved mechanical performance and more sustainable energy supply
regarded as rigid components and mechanical properties of connection beams are not considered capability [1,6].
Design guidelines of connected foundations for transmission tower structures can be found in
in the design. IEEE [1] specified the use of connection beams for the same purpose of increasing
TEPCO [6] and IEEE [1]. In TEPCO [6], connection beams that are placed between foundations are
foundation resistance and reducing differential settlement. As in TEPCO [6], no specific, detailed
regarded as rigid components and mechanical properties of connection beams are not considered in
design the
guideline
design. or IEEEperformance
[1] specifiedofthe
connection components
use of connection beams is included.
for the same To purpose
clarify and fully utilize
of increasing
the performance of connected foundations, further investigation is required
foundation resistance and reducing differential settlement. As in TEPCO [6], no specific, detailed in comparison to the
performance
design of conventional
guideline unconnected
or performance foundations.
of connection components is included. To clarify and fully utilize
Inthe
thisperformance
study, theofperformance of connected
connected foundations, furtherfoundation
investigationforisthe electric
required in transmission
comparison to tower
the
performance
structures of conventional
is investigated using aunconnected foundations.
series of field load tests. For this purpose, model transmission
In thisusing
tower structures study,unconnected
the performance andofconnected
connectedfoundations
foundation for arethe electric transmission
manufactured and used tower
in the
structures is investigated using a series of field load tests. For this purpose,
field load testing program. For the model structures, connection beams with different stiffness are used model transmission
tower structures using unconnected and connected foundations are manufactured and used in the
to examine the effect of connection beams on overall performance of transmission tower foundations.
field load testing program. For the model structures, connection beams with different stiffness are
Based on the test results, a design equation is proposed for the estimation of the load carrying capacity
used to examine the effect of connection beams on overall performance of transmission tower
of connected foundations.
foundations. Based onField loadresults,
the test tests using theequation
a design prototype models offortransmission
is proposed the estimationtowers
of the are
loadalso
conducted to confirm
carrying capacity theofperformance of connectedField
connected foundations. foundations
load tests obtained
using from the modelmodels
the prototype tests and
of to
verify the proposedtowers
transmission designare method.
also conducted to confirm the performance of connected foundations
obtained from the model tests and to verify the proposed design method.
2. Transmission Tower Foundation
2. Transmission Tower Foundation
2.1. Types and Design Procedure
2.1. Types and Design Procedure
Various types of foundations are available for transmission tower structures primarily depending
Variousastypes
on soil conditions of foundations
described in Figure 1. areFigure
available
1a,b for
shows transmission
embeddedtower structures
footings, primarily
also referred to as
depending on soil conditions as described in Figure 1. Figure 1a,b shows
inverted-T foundation, and pile foundation, respectively, both of which are commonly used for embedded footings, alsothe
referred to as inverted-T foundation, and pile foundation, respectively, both of which are commonly
lattice types of tower structures. In soft soil areas, pile foundation is frequently adopted, although it is
used for the lattice types of tower structures. In soft soil areas, pile foundation is frequently adopted,
more costly than embedded footings. Figure 1d shows single pole foundation that is constructed in
although it is more costly than embedded footings. Figure 1d shows single pole foundation that is
generalconstructed
as a form in ofgeneral
drilledasshafts
a formorofdirectly embedded
drilled shafts piles
or directly with or piles
embedded without
with backfills.
or withoutConnected
backfills.
foundation shownfoundation
Connected in Figure 1c is sometimes
shown in Figureused 1c iswith connection
sometimes usedbeams installed between
with connection individual
beams installed
foundations at each corner of tower. It is supposed that the installation of connection
between individual foundations at each corner of tower. It is supposed that the installation beams provides
of
additional stiffness
connection and provides
beams resistance to entirestiffness
additional foundation system [4,5,7].
and resistance to entireConnected
foundation foundations
system [4,5,7].are
Connected
particularly foundations
effective are particularly
when large differentialeffective when are
settlements largeexpected
differential
or settlements are expecteddue
structural instability or to
structural
insufficient instability
foundation due to insufficient
resistance is an issue. foundation resistance is an issue.

Connection beam

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 1. Types of foundations for transmission tower structures: (a) inverted-T foundation; (b) pile
Figure 1. Types of foundations for transmission tower structures: (a) inverted-T foundation; (b) pile
foundation; (c) connected foundation; and (d) single pole foundation
foundation; (c) connected foundation; and (d) single pole foundation

2
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30 3 of 15
The types of design loads for transmission tower foundations differ depending on the type of
transmission tower structure. For example, the single pole foundation shown in Figure 1d is
The types of design loads for transmission tower foundations differ depending on the type of
designed primarily for lateral loads and overturning moments while vertical loads are regarded as
transmission tower structure. For example, the single pole foundation shown in Figure 1d is designed
minor because the self-weight of superstructure is relatively small. For the lattice types of
primarily for lateral loads and overturning moments while vertical loads are regarded as minor
transmission tower structures, lateral loads are assumed to govern the design. When lateral loads
because the self-weight of superstructure is relatively small. For the lattice types of transmission tower
are imposed on the upper tower structure, the loads are transferred to the lower foundations, which
structures, lateral loads are assumed to govern the design. When lateral loads are imposed on the
act as either vertical compressive or uplift forces [1].
upper tower structure, the loads are transferred to the lower foundations, which act as either vertical
Figure 2 shows the typical configuration of applied load (H), transferred loads to lower
compressive or uplift forces [1].
foundations (Q) and mobilized foundation resistances (R). Given the loading direction in the figure,
Figure 2 shows the typical configuration of applied load (H), transferred loads to lower
the front- and rear-side piles are indicated in Figure 2, which are subjected to compressive and uplift
foundations (Q) and mobilized foundation resistances (R). Given the loading direction in the figure,
tensile forces, respectively. The stability of foundation is checked based on following relationship
the front- and rear-side piles are indicated in Figure 2, which are subjected to compressive and uplift
[6,8]:
tensile forces, respectively. The stability of foundation is checked based on following relationship [6,8]:
Rvc Rvt
Qvc ≤ Rvcand Qvt ≤ Rvt in vertical direction (1)
FSFS and Qvt ď FS
Qvc ď
FS
in vertical direction
(1)
Q ď R Rhc and Q ď RRhtht in horizontal direction
≤ hcFSand Qhtht ≤ FS
Qhc hc in horizontal direction (2)
FS FS
where Qvc and Qvt are transferred compressive and uplift loads on front and rear sides, respectively;
where
Qhc andQvcQandare
Qvttransferred
are transferred compressive
horizontal loads and upliftand
on front loads onsides,
rear front and rear sides,FS
respectively; respectively;
is factor of
ht
Q hc and Qht are transferred horizontal loads on front and rear sides, respectively; FS is factor of safety;
safety; Rvc and Rvt are compressive and uplift resistances, respectively; and Rhc and Rht are horizontal
Rresistances,
vc and Rvt are compressive and uplift resistances, respectively; and Rhc and Rht are horizontal
respectively. While the stabilities in both vertical and horizontal directions must be
resistances,
guaranteed,respectively.
the vertical While theagainst
stability stabilities in loads
uplift both vertical and horizontal
(Qvt ) usually directions
governs the design must be
as uplift
guaranteed, the vertical stability against uplift loads (Q vt) usually governs the design as uplift
resistances are usually smaller than vertical compressive resistances due to the absence of tip resistance
resistances are friction
and lower skin usually than
smaller than verticalcase
for compressive compressive
[9–11]. resistances due to the absence of tip
resistance and lower skin friction than for compressive case [9–11].
H

zh
Qvt Qvc

Qht Qhc

Rht Rhc
Rvt Rvc

<Rear side> <Front side>

Figure
Figure2.2.Configurations
Configurationsof
ofloads
loadsand
andresistances
resistancesfor
fortransmission
transmissiontower
tower structure.
structure.

2.2. Connected Foundation

2.2. Connected Foundation
Connected foundations for transmission tower structures consist of main foundation
Connected foundations for transmission tower structures consist of main foundation components
components and supplementary connection beams that are placed between the individual
and supplementary connection beams that are placed between the individual foundation components
foundation components installed at each corner of tower without additional destruction of the
installed at each corner of tower without additional destruction of the environment. Connected
environment. Connected foundations are effective when transmission tower structures are to be
foundations are effective when transmission tower structures are to be constructed in soft soil areas
constructed in soft soil areas and large amounts of differential settlements are expected [1,6]. Figure
3
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30 4 of 15

Sustainability 2016, 8, 30
and large amounts of differential settlements are expected [1,6]. Figure 3 shows two different cases
of loadingtwo
3 shows conditions
differentfor foundations
cases of loadingofconditions
laterally loaded transmission
for foundations tower structures.
of laterally Figure 3a
loaded transmission
represents the caseFigure
tower structures. where3a vertical compressive
represents the caseandwhereuplift loads compressive
vertical are dominant, andwhich
upliftis loads
possible
are
ifdominant,
the load height
which (z ish )possible
in Figureif 2theis very
load high
heightleading
(zh) intoFigure
smaller2 horizontal
is very high loads transmitted
leading to
to smaller
the foundations. Figure 3b represents the horizontal-load dominant case,
horizontal loads transmitted to the foundations. Figure 3b represents the horizontal-load dominantwhich is possible for
lower-heighted towers. for lower-heighted towers.
case, which is possible
For
For the vertical-load dominant
the vertical-load dominantcase caseinin Figure
Figure 3a,3a,
thethe connection
connection beams
beams provideprovide additional
additional shear
shear resistances
resistances against
against vertical
vertical displacement
displacement of the
of the foundations
foundations resultingininincreases
resulting increases inin the
the load
load
capacity
capacity andandreduced
reduceddifferential
differentialsettlements.
settlements. For For the
the horizontal-load
horizontal-load dominant
dominant casecase in
in Figure
Figure 3b,
3b,
the
thelaterally
laterallyloaded
loadedpiles
pilestend
tendtotorotate
rotateand andthetheconnection
connectionbeamsbeamswould
wouldgenerate
generatedownward
downwardand and
upward
upwardshear shearforces to the
forces to front- and rear-side
the front- foundations,
and rear-side respectively,
foundations, with the effect
respectively, with oftheadditional
effect of
additional settlements.
differential differential Insettlements.
reality, as theInvertical
reality, as often
loads the vertical loads
control the often
design control the for
of foundations design
typicalof
foundations for typical transmission tower structures, it is expected that the application of
transmission tower structures, it is expected that the application of connection beams is positively
connection
effective beams isthe
to improve positively effective
performance to improve
of the the performance of the tower structures.
tower structures.

Qvt Qvt Qvc

Qvc Qht
Qht Qhc
Qhc

Connection beam Connection beam

Qv >> Qh Qv << Qh

<Rear side> <Front side> <Rear side> <Front side>

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Loading conditions with (a) vertical and (b) lateral load dominant cases.
Figure 3. Loading conditions with (a) vertical and (b) lateral load dominant cases.

3. Model Load Tests

3. Model Load Tests
3.1.Test
3.1. TestSite
Siteand
andSoil
SoilCondition
Condition
Inorder
In ordertoto investigate
investigate thethe performance
performance of connected
of connected foundations
foundations and of
and effect effect of connection
connection beams,
beams, a series of field load tests using model transmission tower structures
a series of field load tests using model transmission tower structures was conducted. The test site was conducted. Thewas
test
site wasnear
located located
Iksannear
cityIksan citywhere
in Korea in Korea
softwhere
clayeysoft clayey
soils soils
existed. Toexisted. To characterize
characterize in-situ soil in-situ soil
condition
condition at the test site, the standard penetration test (SPT) and cone penetration
at the test site, the standard penetration test (SPT) and cone penetration test (CPT) were conducted. test (CPT) were
conducted.
Figure 4 shows Figure 4 shows
the depth the depth
profiles profiles
of SPT of SPT
blow count N blow
and CPTcount N and
cone CPT cone
resistance resistance
qc with soil type.qc with
The
soil type. The top 1-m surface soil was silty sand, which was removed before
top 1-m surface soil was silty sand, which was removed before the load tests. Below the top silty sand the load tests. Below
the top
layer, silty
silty sand
clays layer, silty
extended down clays extended
to the depth ofdown
7.5 m,tobelow
the depth
whichofa7.5 hardm,silty
belowsand which
layeraexisted.
hard silty
sandUndisturbed
layer existed.soil samples were collected from the silty clay layer and tested to obtain various
indexUndisturbed
and fundamental soil samples were collected
soil properties. from
The soils the classified
were silty clay into
layerclayandwith
testedlowto plasticity
obtain various
(CL)
index and fundamental soil properties. The soils were classified into
according to the unified soil classification system (USCS). The liquid limit (LL) and plasticityclay with low plasticityindex
(CL)
according to the unified soil classification system (USCS). The liquid limit (LL)
(PI) were 44.9% and 23.3%, respectively. The total unit weight (γt ), specific gravity (Gs ), water contentand plasticity index
(PI) and
(w), were 44.9% and
coefficient 23.3%, respectively.
of compressibility The 16.59
(Cc ) were total kN/m
unit weight (γt), specific
3 , 2.69, 43.3%, and 0.4, gravity (Gs), water
respectively. The
content (w), and coefficient of compressibility (C c) were 16.59 kN/m3, 2.69, 43.3%, and 0.4,
unconfined compression and unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial tests were also conducted and
respectively.
the undrainedThe shear unconfined
strength (scompression and unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial tests were
u ) was measured in 8.4 to 11.1 kPa range.
also conducted and the undrained shear strength (su) was measured in 8.4 to 11.1 kPa range.

4
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30 5 of 15

SPT-N Value qc (Mpa)

0 4 8 12 0 1 2 3
0 0
Silty
Sand
1 1

2 2

3 3
Depth (m)

Silty
4 4 Clay

5 5

6 6

7 7

Silty
8 8 Sand

9 9

Figure 4. SPT and CPT results at test site.

Figure 4. SPT and CPT results at test site.
3.2. Model Structures
3.2. Model Structures
Model transmission tower structures with different types of connection beams and tower heights
Model
weretransmission
adopted in the load tower structures
tests. withdetailed
Figure 5 shows different types ofofconnection
configuration beams The
the model structures. and tower
model transmission structures were designed in a simplified configuration
heights were adopted in the load tests. Figure 5 shows detailed configuration of the model structures. with the upper tower
The modelstructure and lower foundations.
transmission structures were The upper tower structure
designed was manufactured
in a simplified using steel
configuration tubular
with the upper
frames with four legs and joint head (”a” in Figure 5a). The lower foundations consisted of mats and
tower structure and lower foundations. The upper tower structure was manufactured using steel
model piles. Piles were considered as those are commonly used for the transmission towers in soft
tubular frames
soils. The with
upperfourtowerlegs and and
frames joint head
lower (”a” in Figure
foundations were all5a). The lower foundations
hinge-connected, as indicated atconsisted
a, b, of
mats andand model piles.
c in Figure 5a. Piles were considered as those are commonly used for the transmission
Tower structures
towers in soft soils. The upper with three
tower different
frames heights
and (z h ) were
lower prepared. Thewere
foundations considered load heights
all hinge-connected, as
(z ) were 0.5, 1.0, and
indicated at a, b, and c in Figure 5a.
h 1.5 m, corresponding to 1 W, 2 W, and 3 W, respectively, where W is contiguous
distance equal to 0.5 m as indicated in Figure 5. For connected foundations, three different types of
Tower structures with three different heights (zh) were prepared.2 The considered load heights
connection beams were used: (1) low-stiffness wire type with EI = 0.133 N¨ m (T1); (2) medium-stiffness
(zh) werebeam
0.5,with1.0,EIand
= 6.135 1.5N¨m, corresponding
m2 (T2); to 1 W,
and (3) high-stiffness 2 W,
beam withand 3 W,
EI = 1571 N¨ respectively,
m2 (T3). Detailedwhere
test W is
contiguous distance
conditions equal to 0.5
are summarized m as
in Table 1. indicated in Figure 5. For connected foundations, three
different types Theofpiles of the model
connection structures
beams werewere
used: made of closed-endedwire
(1) low-stiffness steel type
pipes with
with diameter
EI = 0.133 (B)N⋅mof 2 (T1);
50 mm and length
(2) medium-stiffness beam of 800 mm.EI
with Between
= 6.135theN⋅m
model piles and
2 (T2); and the
(3)upper tower frames,
high-stiffness 100 mm
beam with ˆ 100
EI =mm 1571 N⋅m2
square-shaped steel mats were placed. A load cell was installed at the top joint head to measure applied
(T3). Detailed test conditions are summarized in Table 1.
lateral loads and four additional load cells were installed along the four tower frames to measure
The forces
piles transmitted
of the model to thestructures were made
lower foundations. FifteenofLVDTs
closed-ended steelat pipes
were installed with
the joint headdiameter
and on the(B) of 50
mm and four
lengthsteelof 800tomm.
mats measureBetween
verticalthe
and model piles
horizontal and the upper
displacements. tower
The lateral frames,
loads 100 mm
were applied × 100 mm
at the
square-shaped
joint head steel
usingmats were placed.
a wire-connected A load
winch that was cellinstalled
was installed at the
on a reaction H-piletop jointathead
driven tommeasure
20 to 30
from the model structure.
applied lateral loads and four additional load cells were installed along the four tower frames to
measure forces transmitted to the lower foundations. Fifteen LVDTs were installed at the joint head
and on the four steel mats to measure vertical and horizontal displacements. The lateral loads were
applied at the joint head using a wire-connected winch that was installed on a reaction H-pile driven
at 20 to 30 m from the model structure.
 Sustainability 2016, 8, 30
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30 6 of 15

a
(Unit : m) sh
H

Load cells
zh = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5

0.1
b c

Connection beam

0.8
Model piles

0.05

Contiguous distance (W) = 0.5

(a)

LVDTs

Load cells

LVDTs

Load cell

(b)

Figure 5. Views of model transmission tower structure used in tests: (a) Detailed configuration and
Figure 5. Views of model transmission tower structure used in tests: (a) Detailed configuration and (b)
(b) Model structure and instrumentation
Model structure and instrumentation
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30
Table 1. Table 1. Testfor
Test conditions conditions
model tests. for model tests.
Table 1. Test conditions for model tests.
Table 1. Test conditions for model tests.
Foundation Type EI aa (N⋅m22)a zh b (m) Test Name Test Model
Foundation Type EI EI2) (N¨ m2 ) b (m)
FoundationFoundation
Type EI a (N⋅m
Type
(N⋅m ) zzhhzbbh(m)
0.5 (m)
(1W)
TestTest
NameName
Test Name
1W-N
Test
Test Model
Test Model
Model
0.5 (1W) 1W-N
1.00.5
0.5 (1W)
(1W)
(2W) 1W-N
1W-N
2W-N
Unconnected 1.0
1.0 (2W)
1.0 (2W)
(2W) 2W-N
2W-N
2W-N
Unconnected None (N)
Unconnected None
Unconnected
foundation
foundationfoundation None (N)
None (N)
(N) 1.5 (3W) 3W-N
foundation 1.5
1.5 (3W) 3W-N
1.5 (3W) 3W-N
(3W) 3W-N
0.5 (1W) 1W-T1
0.5 (1W) 1W-T1
1.00.5
0.5 (1W)
(1W)
(2W) 1W-T1
1W-T1
2W-T1
1.0
1.0 (2W)
1.0 (2W)
(2W) 2W-T1
2W-T1
2W-T1
0.133 (T1)
0.133
0.133 (T1)
0.133 (T1)
(T1) 1.5 (3W) 6 3W-T1
1.51.5 (3W) 3W-T1
1.5 (3W)
(3W) 3W-T1
3W-T1
0.50.5
(1W)
(1W) 1W-T2
1W-T2
0.5
0.5 (1W)
(1W) 1W-T2
1W-T2
1.01.0
(2W)
(2W) 2W-T2
2W-T2
Connected 1.0
1.0 (2W)
(2W) 2W-T2
2W-T2
Connected 6.135 (T2)
6.135 (T2)
ConnectedConnected 6.135 (T2)
foundation
foundationfoundation 6.135 (T2) 1.51.5
(3W)
(3W) 3W-T2
3W-T2
foundation 1.5
1.5 (3W)
(3W) 3W-T2
3W-T2
0.50.5 (1W)
(1W) 1W-T3
1W-T3
1571 (T3) 0.5 (1W)
0.51.0 (2W)
(1W) 1W-T3
2W-T3
1W-T3
1.0 (2W) 2W-T3
1.0
1.0 (2W)
(2W) 2W-T3
2W-T3
1571 (T3)
1571
1571 (T3)
(T3) 1.51.5 (3W)
(3W) 3W-T3
3W-T3
1.5
1.5 (3W)
(3W) 3W-T3
3W-T3
a EI: stiffness
a EI:ofstiffness
connection beam;
ofbeam;
b zh: load height.
connection beam; b
a EI: stiffness of connection b zh: load height. zh : load height.
a EI: stiffness of connection beam; b zh: load height.
4. Test Results
4.
4. Test
Test Results
Results
4.1. Load–Displacement Response
4.1.
4.1. Load–Displacement
Load–Displacement Response
Response
Lateral load–displacement (H-sh) curves measured at the top joint head are shown in Figure 6
Lateral
Lateral load–displacement
load–displacement (H-s
(H-shh)) curves
curves measured at at the top
top joint head are shown in
in Figure 66
for the cases with different connection beamsmeasured
of low (T1), the
medium joint
(T2),head
and are
highshown Figurefor
(T3) stiffness
for
for the cases
the cases with
with different
different connection beams of low (T1), medium (T2), and high (T3) stiffness for
different tower heights (zh) connection beams
of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 of
m,low (T1), medium
corresponding to (T2), and and
1W, 2W, high3W,
(T3)respectively.
stiffness for
different
different tower
tower heights
heights (z )) of
of 0.5,
(zhhresults 1.0,
1.0, and
0.5,obtainedand 1.5
1.5 m, corresponding
m, unconnected
corresponding to
to 1W,
1W, 2W, and
and 3W,
2W,were 3W, respectively.
For comparison, the test from foundations also respectively.
included in
For
For comparison,
comparison, the test results
results obtained from unconnected foundations were also
also included in
Figure 6. Note thatthe
thetest
magnitude obtained from as
of H decreases unconnected
zh increases foundations
due to higherwere
overturningincluded
moments in
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30 7 of 15

4. Test Results

4.1. Load–Displacement Response

Lateral load–displacement (H-sh ) curves measured at the top joint head are shown in Figure 6 for
the cases with different connection beams of low (T1), medium (T2), and high (T3) stiffness for different
tower heights (zh ) of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 m, corresponding to 1W, 2W, and 3W, respectively. For comparison,
the test results obtained from unconnected foundations were also included in Figure 6. Note that the
magnitude of H decreases as zh increases due to higher overturning moments with increasing moment
arm. The vertical dashed lines in Figure 6 indicate the loads and displacements corresponding to uplift
pile displacements equal to 10% of pile diameter (0.1 B), as will be further discussed.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30

2.0
1W-N (unconnected)
1W-T1
1W-T2
1.5 1W-T3
H (kN)

1.0

H, sh
0.5

0.1B
0.0
0 10 20 30
sh (mm)
(a)
1.2
2W-N (unconnected)
2W-T1
2W-T2
0.9 2W-T3
H (kN)

0.6

H, sh
0.3

0.1B
0.0
0 10 20 30
sh (mm)
(b)
0.8
3W-N (unconnected)
3W-T1
3W-T2
0.6 3W-T3
H (kN)

0.4

H, sh
0.2

0.1B
0.0
0 10 20 30
sh (mm)
(c)
Figure 6. Lateral load-displacement curves of model transmission tower structures for different load
Figure 6. Lateral load-displacement curves of model transmission tower structures for different load
heights (zh): (a) 1W; (b) 2W; and (c) 3W.
heights (zh ): (a) 1W; (b) 2W; and (c) 3W.
4.2. Design Criterion for Ultimate Load Capacity of Connected Foundations
Figure 7 shows the vertical (svc and svt) versus horizontal (shc and sht) displacements measured
from the front-side compressive and rear-side uplift piles of unconnected and connected
foundations. For the vertical displacements, svc and svt represent downward settlement and uplift
displacement of the front-side and rear-side piles, respectively. The vertical and horizontal
displacements of uplift piles (svt and sht) (solid lines in Figure 7a,b) are much larger than those of
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30 8 of 15

The load responses of the unconnected foundations in Figure 6 indicate that H increases up to
certain load levels and then shows ranges of constant H values with no further increase in load capacity.
As discussed previously, failure or ultimate condition of the transmission tower structures is governed
by the uplift load capacity of rear-side piles. Once the uplift load capacity of rear-side piles is fully
mobilized, load can no longer be increased whereas the compressive load capacity of front-side piles
has not been fully mobilized yet.
From Figure 6, it is seen that connected foundations improved the load carrying capability, which
appears different depending on the load height and stiffness of connection beam. For zh = 1 W in
Figure 6a, no marked increase in load capacity is observed within the initial loading range. Once
yielding is reached, the load capacity of connected foundations continuously increases without
clear indication to failure. The increase in load capacity after yielding was more pronounced for
higher-stiffness connection beams showing additional safety margin and ductility. For zh = 2 W and
3 W in Figure 6b,c the connected cases also showed improved load carrying capability. The effects of
connection beam with chan

4.2. Design Criterion for Ultimate Load Capacity of Connected Foundations

Figure 7 shows the vertical (svc and svt ) versus horizontal (shc and sht ) displacements measured
from the front-side compressive and rear-side uplift piles of unconnected and connected foundations.
For the vertical displacements, svc and svt represent downward settlement and uplift displacement
of the front-side and rear-side piles, respectively. The vertical and horizontal displacements of uplift
piles (svt and sht ) (solid lines in Figure 7a,b) are much larger than those of compressive piles (dashed
lines in Figure 7a,b. It is also seen that uplift displacements (svt ) are markedly larger than downward
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30
settlements (svc ) and horizontal displacements (shc and sht ) for both unconnected and connected
foundations.
capacity of This entiremeans that the system
foundation uplift load
andcapacity controls load
thus ultimate the load capacityofoftransmission
condition entire foundation
tower
system and thus ultimate load condition of transmission tower structures.
structures.

40 40
3W-N 3W-T2
svt svc
svt (mm)

svt s
svt (mm)

30 shc 30 sht vc shc

sht

20 20

10 10

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
svc (mm)

-10 -10
svc (mm)

svc vs. shc svc vs. shc

-20 svt vs. sht -20 svt vs. sht

-30 -30
shc & sht (mm) shc & sht (mm)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 7. Vertical
7. Vertical versusversus horizontal
horizontal displacements
displacements of compressive
of compressive front-rear-side
front- and uplift and uplift rear-side
foundations
foundations for (a) unconnected and (b) connected
for (a) unconnected and (b) connected foundations. foundations.

The ultimate load capacity of axially loaded piles is often specified as a load corresponding to
The ultimate load capacity of axially loaded piles is often specified as a load corresponding to
0.1 B settlement (i.e., 10% of pile diameter) assuming that it corresponds to the level of differential
0.1 B settlement (i.e., 10% of pile diameter) assuming that it corresponds to the level of differential
settlement that would cause the ultimate limit state of superstructure. In a similar concept, design
settlement that would cause the ultimate limit state of superstructure. In a similar concept, design
criterion for transmission tower foundations can be given by the 0.1 B condition for uplift
criterion for transmission tower foundations can be given by the 0.1 B condition for uplift displacement
displacement based on the results in Figure 7. In fact, the uplift load capacity of piles would be fully
based on the results in Figure 7. In fact, the uplift load capacity of piles would be fully mobilized at
mobilized at displacements smaller than 0.1 B. For connected foundations, as observed in Figure 6,
displacements smaller than 0.1 B. For connected foundations, as observed in Figure 6, the load capacity
the load capacity of transmission tower structures tends to continuously increase even after 0.1B
of transmission tower structures tends to continuously increase even after 0.1B condition of uplift
condition of uplift piles due to additional load carrying mechanism of connection beams. Therefore,
piles due to additional load carrying mechanism of connection beams. Therefore, the adoption of 0.1B
the adoption of 0.1B criterion for uplift piles is reasonable for connected foundations in that typical
tolerable differential settlement and the load response characteristics of connected foundations can
both be reflected.

4.3. Effect of Connection Beams

Figure 8a shows the values of the ultimate lateral load Hu acting on the transmission tower for
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30 9 of 15

criterion for uplift piles is reasonable for connected foundations in that typical tolerable differential
settlement and the load response characteristics of connected foundations can both be reflected.

4.3. Effect of Connection Beams

Figure 8a shows the values of the ultimate lateral load Hu acting on the transmission tower for
connected and unconnected foundations with different connection beam stiffness and load heights.
From Figure 8a, it is seen that Hu increases similarly with increasing connection beam stiffness for all
load heights. However, it is also observed that the use of connection beam is more effective for higher
load heights when the ratio of Hu between unconnected and connected cases is considered.
The reduction of differential settlement is another main aspect that is expected from the use
of connected foundation. Figure 8b shows the values of differential settlement (∆sv ) measured for
different connection beam. The values of ∆sv in Figure 8b corresponds to those measured at the loads
equal to Hu for unconnected foundation cases. ∆sv decreases as connection beam stiffness increases
while the magnitude and rate of ∆sv decrease differ for different load heights. For the low (T1) and
high (T3) stiffness connection beams, ∆sv decreased by 16% to 50% and 44% to 97%, respectively,
showing higher reduction effects of differential settlement for higher connection beam stiffness.
Based on the results in Figure 8b, the main effects of connection beam on differential settlement
can be summarized as follows: (1) the effect of connection beam is not linearly proportional to
connection beam stiffness, showing decreasing rate of the reduction effect with increasing connection
beam stiffness; and (2) the reduction effect of differential settlement is more pronounced for higher
load height, again indicating that the use of connected foundation is more effective for higher
tower structures.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30

1.6 7
1W
∆sv 1W
2W 6
1.2 3W 2W
5 3W
∆sv (mm)
Hu (kN)

4
0.8
3

0.4 2

1
0.0 0
None Low (T1) Med (T2) High (T3) None Low (T1) Med (T2) High (T3)

Connection beam types Type of connection beam

(a) (b)
Figure 8. Changes of ultimate load capacity and differential settlement with connection beam
Figure 8. Changes of ultimate load capacity and differential settlement with connection beam condition:
condition: (a) ultimate load capacity (Hu) and (b) differential settlement (Δsv).
(a) ultimate load capacity (Hu ) and (b) differential settlement (∆sv ).

5. Design Application
5. Design Application
As indicated in Equations (1) and (2), the maximum load (Hu) applicable to the transmission
As indicated in Equations (1) and (2), the maximum load (Hu ) applicable to the transmission tower
tower is given as a function of the vertical or horizontal resistance (Rv or Rh) of the individual
is given as a function of the vertical or horizontal resistance (Rv or Rh ) of the individual foundation
foundation components. Considering the equilibrium condition of entire structural system in Figure
components. Considering the equilibrium condition of entire structural system in Figure 2, Hu can be
2, Hu can be estimated as follows:
estimated as follows:
H u = (2Rht + 2Rhc ) / FS = 4Rh / FS
Hu “ p2Rht ` 2Rhc q{FS “ 4Rh {FS (3)
(3)
2Rvt W 1
Hu “ (4)
2zR WFS 1
H u = h vt
2RvczW
h 1 FS
(4)
Hu “ (5)
zh FS
2 RvcW 1
Hu =
z h FS (5)

where Rvc and Rvt are compressive and uplift resistances, respectively; Rhc and Rht are horizontal
resistances; FS is factor of safety; and W and zh are contiguous distance and load height, respectively.
The smallest Hu is determined from Equations (3)–(5), which would then control the design. For
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30 10 of 15

where Rvc and Rvt are compressive and uplift resistances, respectively; Rhc and Rht are horizontal
resistances; FS is factor of safety; and W and zh are contiguous distance and load height, respectively.
The smallest Hu is determined from Equations (3)–(5), which would then control the design. For most
cases of transmission tower structures, Rvt is smallest and Equation (4) tends to control the design.
Connected foundations show higher load carrying capability due to additional resistances
provided by connection beams. Increase in the uplift resistance (Rvt ) for connected foundations
can then be expressed in terms of that for unconnected foundation as follows:

Rvt,c “ CR Rvt (6)

where Rvt,c and Rvt are uplift resistances of connected and unconnected foundations, respectively, and
CR is the resistance increase factor. Introducing the resistance increase factor CR , the ultimate lateral
load of Equation (4) can be rewritten as follows:

2CR Rvt W 1
Hu,c “ (7)
zh FS

where Hu,c is ultimate lateral load capacity for connected foundations; Rvt is uplift resistance; and CR
is resistance increase factor.
In order to evaluate the values of CR , the correlation analysis was performed using the model load
test results. Key variables adopted into the correlation analysis are load height, stiffness of connection
beams, and soil condition, which were found as affecting the load carrying capability of connected
foundations from the test results. The result of correlation analysis. given in Figure 9a,b. shows the
influence of load height and connection beam stiffness, respectively. From Figure 9a, it is seen that CR
increases with connection beam stiffness and loading height. The correlation given in Figure 9a is:

zh {w
CR “ 1 ` α ˆ (8)
3.36 ` 1.05pzh {wq

where α is stiffness-related model parameter. The values of α were found to be 0.4, 1.2, and 1.4 for low
(T1), medium (T2), and high (T3) stiffness cases, respectively, indicating variability with connection
beam stiffness.
The effect of connection beam stiffness given in terms of CR would change with soil condition
as the load capacity of foundations depends on soil condition, which needs to be properly taken into
account. The values of α in Equation (8) were therefore evaluated considering the connection beam
stiffness (EI) normalized with the uplift pile load capacity given by pile skin friction (qs ), pile shaft area
(As ), and pile base area (Ab ). Note that Ab and As eventually represent the load capacity of foundation,
while qs reflect the local soil condition. The values of α were obtained from the model test results and
plotted in Figure 9b as a function of the normalized stiffness. The correlation given in Figure 9b is:
ˆ ˙
EI
α “ 0.1015 ˆ ln ř ř ` 0.784 (9)
qs As Ab

where EI is connection beam stiffness; qs is pile skin friction; and As and Ab are pile shaft and base
areas, respectively. The summation in Equation (9) represents the cases where multiple piles are
used. Ab was introduced to make α as a dimensionless, normalized parameter. Using Equations (8)
and (9), the values of CR can be obtained and applied to estimate the load carrying capacity of
connected foundations.
  q A A 
 s s b 

where EI is connection beam stiffness; qs is pile skin friction; and As and Ab are pile shaft and base
areas, respectively. The summation in Equation (9) represents the cases where multiple piles are
used. Ab was introduced to make α as a dimensionless, normalized parameter. Using Equations
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30
(8)
11 of 15
and (9), the values of CR can be obtained and applied to estimate the load carrying capacity of
connected foundations.
2 2.0

1.5 1.5

1
CR

α
1.0
None
0.5 Low (T1)
Med (T2) 0.5
High (T3)
0
0 1 2 3 4 0.0
0.01 1 100 10000
Relative height (zh/W) EI/(qsAsAb)
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Correlation for resistance increase factor: (a) Resistance increase factor (CR) versus relative
Figure 9. Correlation for resistance increase factor: (a) Resistance increase factor (CR ) versus relative
height and (b) Correlation parameter versus normalized stiffness.
height and (b) Correlation parameter versus normalized stiffness.

6. Field Load Tests Using Prototype Models

6. Field Load Tests Using Prototype Models
6.1.Test
6.1. Test Description
Description
Theperformance
The performanceofofconnected
connectedfoundations
foundationsandandproposed
proposeddesign
designmethod
methodwerewereobtained
obtainedfrom
from
the test results using small-scale model structures. To check and validate these results and
the test results using small-scale model structures. To check and validate these results and proposed proposed
designmethod,
design method,additional
additionalfield
fieldload
loadtests
testswere
wereconducted
conductedusing
usinglarger-scale
larger-scaleprototype
prototypemodels
modelsofof
transmission tower structures. The prototype models were designed and constructed
transmission tower structures. The prototype models were designed and constructed with 1/8 scale with 1/8 scale
in
reference to the 345 kV transmission line in Korea. The field load tests were conducted at Hwasungat
in reference to the 345 kV transmission line in Korea. The field load tests were conducted
city located near the west coastal area of Korea. Soils at the test site consisted of the upper sandy
clay layer with 4-m thickness and the lower silty sand11 layer. The upper sandy clay was classified into
CL showing a soft soil condition with SPT N values smaller than 2. The total unit weight (γt ), water
content (w), liquid limit (LL), plastic index (PL), and compressive index (Cc ) for the upper sandy clay
layer were 15.5 kN/m3 , 69.6%, 55.9%, 29.2%, and 0.58, respectively. The undrained shear strength (su )
at the middle depth of the upper sandy clay layer was 8.6 kPa.
Figure 10 shows the detailed configuration of prototype models used in the field load tests.
The prototype model structures with and without connection beams were both constructed and
tested. The upper tower structures were constructed using lattice steel frames with the height of
2.856 m corresponding to 2.23 times the contiguous distance (W) equal to 1.28 m (i.e., 2.23 W). For
the foundations at each corner, four close-ended piles and square concrete mat of 0.5 m ˆ 0.5 m were
installed. The piles were 101.6 mm and 4.5 m in diameter and length, respectively, driven down to
the top of the lower silty sand layer. Two different concrete connection beams with widths of 125 and
250 mm were used. These correspond to connection beam stiffness (EI) equal to 25% and 50% of the
mat stiffness. A total of three prototype model structures were constructed and tested, including one
unconnected foundation and two connected foundations with 25% and 50% of stiffness connection
beams. These will be referred to as PMT-N, PMT-25, and PMT-50, respectively. Lateral loads (H)
were applied at the top of the tower using the hydraulic cylinder with a load increment of 50 kN
(Figure 10b). The load cell was installed between the hydraulic cylinder and the transmission tower to
measure applied lateral load (H). On the foundations at each corner, LVDTs were installed to measure
displacements of foundations.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30 12 of 15
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30

sh
(unit : m) H

2.856

Steel frame

0.5

0.085

Connection Beam
(0.125 or 0.250)

4.500

0.334
B=0.1016

W=1.280

1.780

(a)
SPT-N value
Top mixed
0 10 20 30 40
0
layer
1
Hydraulic cylinder
2
Sandy
1/8 scale model 3
clay
Depth (m)

Depth of
4
pile base
5

6
Silty
7
Sand
8

(b) (c)
Figure 10. Configuration of prototype model and foundations for field load tests: (a) Overall view of
Figure 10. Configuration of prototype model and foundations for field load tests: (a) Overall view of
prototype model; (b) Test setup; and (c) Soil conditions.
prototype model; (b) Test setup; and (c) Soil conditions.

13
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30 13 of 15

6.2. Comparison and Validation

Figure 11a shows lateral load-displacement (H-sh ) curves measured at the top of the prototype
model tower structures. Similar to the small-scale model tests, connected foundations showed higher
load carrying capacities than unconnected foundation. The load carrying capacity increase as the
connection beam stiffness increases. Based on the 0.1B criterion, the values of Hu /Hu,un were obtained
and compared with those obtained from the small-scale model tests (SMT) in Figure 11b. Hu increased
by 56.9% and 75.5% for the 25% and 50% of stiffness connection beams, respectively. As in SMT, the
increase in Hu is not linearly proportional to connection beam stiffness, showing decreasing rate of Hu
increase after the 25% connection-beam stiffness. Figure 11c shows the ratios of differential settlements
between connected and unconnected foundations (∆sv /∆sv,un ). ∆sv decreased by 88% and 94% for the
25% and 50% of stiffness connection beams, respectively. It is also seen that the reduction of ∆sv is
relatively small after the 25% connection-beam stiffness, indicating that the 25%-stiffness connection
beam may be more efficient in this case.
To check the validity of the proposed design equations of Equations (8) and (9), the values of
Hu were calculated and compared with measured results. Figure 12 shows the calculated (Hu,cal )
and measured (Hu,mea ) results. For the calculation of Hu,cal , the pile skin frictions (qs ) was obtained
using the α method of API [12]. The values of CR estimated using the proposed method were 1.76
and 1.79 for the 25% and 50% of stiffness connection beams, respectively. As compared in Figure 12,
the calculated value of Hu,cal are in good agreement with measured values of Hu,mea , confirming the
validity of the
Sustainability proposed
2016, 8, 30 method.

100
PMT-N
PMT-25
80
PMT-50

60
H (kN)

40

20

0
0 100 200 300
sh (mm)
(a)
Stiffness (SMT) Stiffness (SMT)
Low (T1) Mid (T2) High (T3) Low (T1) Mid (T2) High (T3)
2.0 1
1W
2W
1.6 0.8
3W
∆sv/ ∆sv,un (mm)
Hu/Hu,un

2.23W-Prototype
1.2 0.6

0.8 1W 0.4
2W
0.4 3W 0.2
2.23W-Prototype
0.0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

Relative stiffness (PMT) (%) Relative stiffness (PMT) (%)

(b) (c)
Figure 11. Results from prototype model load tests: (a) Load-displacement curves; (b) Load capacity
Figure 11. Results from prototype model load tests: (a) Load-displacement curves; (b) Load capacity
ratio (Hu/Hu,un); (c) Differential settlement ratio (∆sv/∆sv,un).
ratio (Hu /Hu,un ); (c) Differential settlement ratio (∆sv /∆sv,un ).
100

80

60
kN)
 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

Relative stiffness (PMT) (%) Relative stiffness (PMT) (%)

(b) (c)
Figure2016,
Sustainability 11. Results
8, 30 from prototype model load tests: (a) Load-displacement curves; (b) Load capacity
14 of 15
ratio (Hu/Hu,un); (c) Differential settlement ratio (∆sv/∆sv,un).

100

80

60

Hu,cal (kN)
40
PMT-N

20 PMT-25
PMT-50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Hu,mea (kN)

Figure 12.
12. Comparison
Comparison of
of measured
measured (H
(Hu,mea)) and calculated (Hu,cal) lateral load capacities from
Figure u,mea and calculated (Hu,cal ) lateral load capacities from
prototype model tests.
prototype model tests.

7. Summary and Conclusions

7. Summary and Conclusions
The sustainability of electrical energy supply system has become a critical issue as the demand
The sustainability of electrical energy supply system has become a critical issue as the demand
for electricity has continuously increased. The connected foundation is an effective foundation type
for electricity has continuously increased. The connected foundation is an effective foundation type
to increase the sustainability of electrical transmission tower system in soft soils without additional
to increase the sustainability of electrical transmission tower system in soft soils without additional
environmental destruction. In this study, the performance of connected foundation for transmission
environmental destruction. In this study, the performance of connected foundation for transmission
tower structures was investigated using a series of field load testing programs. For this purpose,
tower structures was investigated using a series of field load testing programs. For this purpose, model
transmission tower structures were specifically manufactured and adopted into the field load tests.
Variety of test conditions with different connection14
beam stiffness and load heights were considered in
the model load tests. Based on the load-capacity mobilization mechanism, a criterion to define the
ultimate load capacity (Hu ) for connected foundations was proposed.
For all test conditions considered in this study, connected foundations produced better
performance with higher load carrying capacities and smaller differential settlements than unconnected
foundations. In particular, the use of connection beam was more effective for higher load heights. The
load carrying capacity of connected foundation increased with increasing connection beam stiffness.
Based on the test results, a design method to estimate the load capacity of connected foundation was
proposed with the correlation of resistance increase factor. The effects of load height, connection beam
stiffness, and soil condition were taken into account for the proposed design method. The proposed
method can be effectively applied to improve the foundation stability of electrical transmission tower
structures in soft soils.
Field load tests using prototype models of transmission tower structure with reduced scale
were conducted to check the performance of connected foundations and the validity of proposed
design method. Two connection-beam stiffness of 25% and 50% mat stiffness were considered for the
prototype model structures. Hu of connected foundations increased by 56.9% and 75.5% for 25% and
50% of stiffness connection beams, respectively. Differential settlements decreased by 88% and 94% for
25% and 50% of stiffness connection beams, respectively. The calculated load carrying capacity using
the proposed design method showed good agreement with measured results confirming the validity
of the proposed method.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by a Power Generation & Electricity Delivery of the Korea Institute
of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the Korean Ministry of Knowledge
Economy (No. 20101020200060). This work was also supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIP) (Nos. 2011-0030040
and 2013R1A1A2058863).
Sustainability 2016, 8, 30 15 of 15

Author Contributions: All three authors significantly contributed to the scientific study and writing. Doohyun
Kyung and Junhwan Lee contribute to the overall idea, planning, financing, analyzing and writing of the
manuscript; Daehong Kim contributed to the overall idea, planning and financing of the project; and Garam Kim
and Incheol Kim contributed to discussions on the mechanical issues of this paper and manuscript preparations.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE guide for transmission structure foundation design
and testing. Available online: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=7707 (accessed on 9
September 2015).
2. Morinaga, Y.; Kamiji, M.; Imoto, S.; Ogawa, S.; Iwamori, K. Transmission tower foundation in japan. In
Proceedings of IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exhibition 2002: Asia Pacific,
Yokohama, Japan, 6–10 October 2002; pp. 2162–2165.
3. Korea Electrical Contractors Association. Handbook for Transmission Structure; Korea Electrical Contractors
Association: Seoul, Korea, 2003.
4. Jang, S.H.; Kim, H.K.; Ham, B.W.; Chung, K.S. A study on the transmission tower foundation design and
construction method—A focus of cylindrical foundation. Trans. Korean Inst. Electr. Eng. 2007, 56, 1031–1034.
5. Kim, J.B.; Cho, S.B. The design and the full load test results of 765kV tower foundation. In Proceedings of
Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers (KIEE) Fall National Conference, Yongin, Korea, November 1995;
pp. 447–449.
6. TEPCO. Design Guideline for UHV Foundation; Tokyo Electric Power Company: Tokyo, Japan, 1988.
7. Japanese Electrotechical Committee. Design Standard for Power Transmission Supports, JEC-127–1979; Standard
of the Japanese Electrotechnical Committee: Tokyo, Japan, 1997.
8. Korea Electronic Power Corporation (KEPCO). Standard of the Tower Foundation Design in Transmission Line,
DS-1110; Korea Electronic Power Corporation: Naju, Korea, 2011.
9. Poulos, H.G.; Davis, E.H. Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, 1st ed.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY,
USA, 1980.
10. De Nicola, A.; Randolph, M.F. Tensile and compressive shaft capacity of piles in sand. J. Geotech. Eng. 1993,
119, 1952–1973. [CrossRef]
11. Elhakim, A.F.; Mayne, P.W. Discussion of “Side resistance in piles and drilled shafts” by Michael W. O’Neill.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002, 128, 448–449. [CrossRef]
12. American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Construction Fixed Offshore
Platforms. Working Stress Design; American Petroleum Institute: Washing, DC, USA, 1993.

© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).