Engineering Geology 101 (2008) 226235

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e n g g e o

Design of shallow foundations under tensile loading for transmission line towers:
An overview
M.P. Pacheco a,1, F.A.B. Danziger b,, C. Pereira Pinto c,2
a
University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, R. Ingls de Souza 334, Jardim Botnico, RJ, 22460-110, Brazil
b
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, R. Vice-Gov. Rubens Berardo 65, apt 304, Bl 2, Gvea, RJ, 22451-070, Brazil
c
Federal Center of Technological Education, CEFET/RJ, and PCE Eng., R. Santa Clara 248, apt 401, Copacabana, RJ, 22041-010, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Tensioned foundations are common in civil engineering applications such as transmission towers, harbors,
Received 1 February 2008 offshore structures, basement slabs under pressure, industrial equipment, etc. Procedures for the design of
Received in revised form 31 May 2008 tensioned foundations are discussed in this paper, including specic recommendations for more common
Accepted 10 June 2008
transmission tower foundations. Starting from a distinction between shallow and deep modes of failure, the
Available online 24 June 2008
paper presents the most common failure mechanisms for shallow failure in tension, including procedures for
calculation of foundation tensile capacity under vertical and inclined loading. Emphasis is given to the
Keywords:
Tensile capacity
inuence of the strength of the compacted backll compared to the strength of the natural soil, including
Shallow foundation presentation of results of full-scale loading tests.
Failure modes 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Inclined loading

1. Introduction
This paper results from three decades of research development at
the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro since 1970s, based on many full-
scale tensile tests in different types of transmission tower foundations
in different soil formations throughout Brazil (Barata et al., 1978, 1979;
Danziger, 1983; Barata et al., 1985; Pereira Pinto, 1985; Rufer dos
Santos, 1985; Danziger et al., 1989; Rufer dos Santos, 1999; Garcia,
2005; Danziger et al., 2006b). The practical recommendations are based
on the Authors' experience in design and construction of foundations
for extra-high voltage transmission lines in the last 30 years covering
the entire country, including very long transmission systems in the
Amazon region, and the Itaipu 750 kV transmission system.
The paper published by Balla (1961) is widely recognized as the
pioneer work on tensioned foundations (e.g., Meyerhof and Adams,
1968; Vesic, 1969). A number of researches followed in several
institutions around the world, e.g., at University of Grenoble (e.g.,
Ribier, 1962; Montel, 1963; Martin, 1963, 1966; Biarez and Barraud,
1968; Porcheron and Martin, 1968; Trn-V-Nhim, 1971; Martin,
1973; Batmanabane, 1973; Martin and Cochard, 1973), Nova Scotia
Technical College (e.g., Macdonald, 1963; Spence, 1965; Wiseman,
1966; Meyerhof and Adams, 1968; Meyerhof, 1973a,b), University of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 21 2562 7391.
E-mail addresses: marcus_pacheco@terra.com.br (M.P. Pacheco),
danziger@coc.ufrj.br (F.A.B. Danziger), claudio.pereirapinto@gmail.com (C.P. Pinto).
1
Tel.: +55 21 3205 4699.
2
Tel.: +55 21 3231 7470.
Glasgow (e.g., Sutherland, 1965; Davie and Sutherland, 1977, 1978;
Stewart, 1985; Sutherland, 1988), Ontario Hydro Research Division
(e.g., Adams and Hayes, 1967; Adams and Klym, 1972; Ismael and Klym,
1978, 1979), Duke University (e.g., Esquivel-Daz, 1967; Ali, 1968;
Bhatnagar, 1969; Vesic, 1969), Kyoto University (e.g., Matsuo, 1967,
1968), University of Texas (e.g., Das and Seeley, 1975a,b; Das, 1975,
1978, 1980; Das et al., 1985; Das and Puri, 1989), University of Sydney
and University of Western Ontario (e.g., Rowe, 1978; Rowe and Booker,
1979a,b, 1980; Rowe and Davis, 1982a,b), Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro (e.g., Barata et al.,1978, 1979; Danziger, 1983; Barata et al.,1985;
Pereira Pinto, 1985; Rufer dos Santos, 1985; Danziger et al., 1989;
Rufer and Mahler, 1989; Santos, 1999; Garcia, 2005; Danziger et al.,
2006b), Cornell University (e.g., Kulhawy et al., 1979; Kulhawy, 1985;
Trautmann and Kulhawy, 1988; Kulhawy and Stewart, 1994; Phoon et
al., 2003a), Kuwait University (e.g., Ismael and Klym, 1979; Ismael and
Al-Sanad, 1986; Ismael, 1989), Danish Engineering Academy (e.g.,
Ovesen, 1981), University of Liverpool (e.g., Dickin and Leung, 1983,
1985; Dickin, 1988), Delft University of Technology (e.g., Vermeer and
Sutjiadi, 1985), University of Wales (e.g., Murray and Geddes, 1987),
Sarajevo Civil Eng. Faculty (e.g., Sarac, 1989), Concordia University and
Union College (e.g., Ghaly et al., 1991a,b,c; Hanna and Ghaly, 1992;
Ghaly and Hanna, 1992, 1994a,b), Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
(e.g., Andersen et al., 1992, 1993; Dyvik et al., 1993), Indian Institute of
Science (e.g., Rao and Kumar, 1994), University of Massachusetts (e.g.,
Lutenegger and Miller, 1994), Hiroshima University and Tokyo Inst. of
Technology (e.g., Gurung et al., 1998), National University of Singapore
(e.g., Phoon et al., 2003a), Mie University and University of Tokyo (e.g.,
Sakai and Tanaka, 2007), among others.

0013-7952/$ see front matter 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.06.002
 M.P. Pacheco et al. / Engineering Geology 101 (2008) 226235 227

Fig. 1. Most common types of towers: (a) self-supported tower; (b) guyed tower.

A number of those theories have been used to compare the
predicted uplift capacity with full-scale tensile testing in unsaturated
soils by Danziger (1983), Pereira Pinto (1985) and Rufer dos Santos
(1999). These studies have indicated generally that the theories
developed at the University of Grenoble match reasonably well the
test results for different types of soils, failure modes, load inclinations,
and embedment depths with proper adjustments to account for the
effect of inhomogeneity provided by the compacted backll. There-
fore, the theoretical predictions of tensioned foundation capacity
discussed in this paper are based mainly on the comprehensive work
developed at the University of Grenoble. It is worth mentioning that
the research developed at the University of Grenoble is not well
known by the geotechnical community, probably because most papers
have been published in journals and conferences related to transmis-
sion lines (mostly related to electrical engineering).
In tensile foundations, shear strains are more pronounced than
volumetric strains in contributing to the displacements. In founda-
tions under compressive loads, especially in weak soils, volumetric
strains are predominant in contributing to the settlements. As a result,
tensioned foundations with well compacted backll produce gener-
ally smaller displacements compared to foundations under the same
compressive load in the same type of soil. Therefore, the design of
foundations under tensile loads is conceived under limit equilibrium
criteria in most cases, in contrast to compressed foundations where
considerations of limit equilibrium and settlements are important.
Further discussion on prediction of displacements of tensioned
foundations is provided by e.g., Rowe and Booker (1980), Trautmann
and Kulhawy (1988). Finite element analyses are also useful to predict
displacements of tensioned foundations, although more accurate 3-D
simulations may be time consuming for design purposes. In this paper,
the design recommendations are restricted to limit equilibrium
analyses.
2. Tensile loads and failure modes
Tensioned foundations can be subjected to permanent as well as
transient loading. In case of transmission lines, permanent loading is
caused by angle in the line and anchor loading in the towers. Angle
load occurs when there is change in direction of the transmission line
at the tower. Anchor load occurs on one side of the rst and the last
tower of a row of towers (named end-of-line or anchor towers),
resulting in unbalanced forces at the sides of the tower produced by
different cable tension and construction load. Transient loading occurs
due to wind load (usually the dominant design load) and sudden
mechanical failures of the conductors.
Self-supported transmission towers (Fig. 1a) can apply alternate
nearly concentric compression/tension loads (Fig. 2a and b) or eccentric
loads (Fig. 2c) to the foundation. Guyed towers (Fig. 1b) transmit

Fig. 2. Common shallow foundations for self-supported towers: (a) steel grillage; (b) footing with inclined pedestal; (c) footing with vertical pedestal.
228 M.P. Pacheco et al. / Engineering Geology 101 (2008) 226235

Fig. 3. Case of very high foundation pedestals: (a) sketch of an anchored base; (b) general view of the crossing of a river at the Amazon region during a ooded period (Danziger et al.,
2006b).

concentric orthogonal tension loads to the inclined guy foundation, in (about 30 to 35 to vertical), the effect of load inclination should be
addition to compressive eccentric and horizontal loads to the central accounted for in foundation design, as the ultimate tensile capacity is
mast foundation. For the typical design and inclination of a tower guy dependent on the load/plate inclination.
 M.P. Pacheco et al. / Engineering Geology 101 (2008) 226235
The foundation design loads are usually provided by the tower
manufacturer. The foundation loads are calculated under different
load hypotheses. In self-supported towers (Fig. 1a), the design loads
are given by superposition of the vertical (tension/compression) and
two mutually perpendicular horizontal loads that act transversely and
along the transmission line, providing a resultant load nearly
coincident with the leg inclination. The foundation designer takes
into account the most unfavorable load hypothesis on each foundation
element, making a distinction between permanent and transient
loading. Safety factors of three for permanent loads and two for
transient loads, with respect to the theoretical ultimate tensile
capacity, are generally recommended for tensioned foundations.
Intermediate values may be used for simultaneous permanent and
transient loading. A discussion on global and partial factors of safety,
as well as on a probabilistic approach for transmission line founda-
tions is provided by Phoon et al. (2003b).
Steel grillage foundations (Fig. 2a) or footings with inclined
pedestals (Fig. 2b) with a foundation depth D and width B for self-
supported transmission towers are subjected to a resultant tension (T)
or compression (C) load that is approximately in the same direction as
the tower leg, transmitting thus mostly concentric loading to the
foundation. Moreover, the usual slope of a typical self-supported
tower leg is small ( b 10). Thus, for practical purposes, the tensile
capacity of steel grillage foundations or footings with inclined
pedestals for self-supported towers is calculated for vertical loading
only, neglecting the secondary effects of load inclination and minor
eccentricities. In contrast, self-supported towers on footings with a
vertical pedestal (Fig. 2c) introduce eccentricities (e) in two orthogo-
nal directions, parallel and perpendicular to the direction of the
transmission line. The behavior of tensioned foundations under
eccentric and oblique load was studied by e.g., Matsuo (1967), Vesic
(1969), Meyerhof (1973a). There are situations in practice where
Fig. 4. Shallow and deep failure modes: (a) stiff soils ( b 0); a.1: shallow mode; a.2: deep
mode; (b) weak soils ( N 0); b.1: shallow mode; b.2: limit situation between shallow
and deep modes; b.3: deep mode (Martin, 1966; Biarez and Barraud, 1968; Porcheron
and Martin, 1968; Martin, 1973).
229
Fig. 5. Determination of the critical depth, stiff soils (Martin, 1966, 1973).
foundation pedestals need to be high, like e.g., in cases of signicant
seasonal variation in the ooding level of rivers or inundated areas
crossed by transmission lines (Danziger et al., 2006b). High pedestals
are much easier to build vertically rather than inclined. The over-
turning moments generated in such cases may be very high, and the
corresponding footing dimensions would be very large. The use of
prestressed anchors at the foundation corners is generally cost-
effective to absorb high overturning moments, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
Prestressed anchors may represent a cost-effective solution in case of
very high uplift loads, even with inclined pedestals, providing a
signicant reduction of footing width and/or depth.
Vertical or nearly vertical tensioned plates are divided into shallow
and deep modes of failure (e.g., Martin, 1966; Biarez and Barraud,
1968; Meyerhof and Adams, 1968; Vesic, 1969), as shown in Fig. 4a for
stiff soils and Fig. 4b for weak soils. In shallow mode, the failure
surface reaches the ground level and all applied tensile load is resisted
by the plate. In deep mode, the tensile load is shared by plate and
shaft, where the failure surface (or plastied zone) around the plate
does not reach the ground level. The ultimate tensile load Qult
obtained as a function of the plate depth D, in shallow and deep
modes, is depicted qualitatively in Fig. 5. The dashed and solid lines
represent the shallow and deep modes respectively (Martin, 1966;
Biarez and Barraud, 1968; Porcheron and Martin, 1968; Martin, 1973).
The two curves intersect at the critical depth (Dc), where the failure
mode changes from shallow to deep or vice-versa. To know whether
the failure will be in shallow or deep mode, one should perform the
calculations for both modes, taking the one corresponding to the
smaller tensile resistance. However, full-scale load tests indicate that
the critical depth is no less than two to three times the diameter of a
circular plate or the width of a square plate. Therefore, for typical
depths and dimensions of ordinary shallow foundations used in
transmission towers, the failure would be in shallow mode. Thus, the
behavior of foundations under tensile loading discussed in this paper
is limited to the shallow mode.
Fig. 6. Observed (dashed line) and simplied (full line) failure surfaces in stiff soils
(Martin, 1966, 1973).
230 M.P. Pacheco et al. / Engineering Geology 101 (2008) 226235
Fig. 7. Uplift capacity in soft clays: (a) vertical excavation; (b) sloped excavation.
The shapes of the failure surface in shallow and deep modes are
dictated by the type of soil in which the foundation is placed (e.g.,
Martin, 1973) and by the inclination of the tensile load (e.g., Martin
and Cochard, 1973). The simplied shallow mode shown in Fig. 6 was
developed for homogeneous stiff soils under vertical loading. The
actual curvilinear failure surface obtained in the tensile tests is
replaced by an equivalent simplied conical surface holding a slope ,
as indicated in Figs. 4 and 6. The shape of the failure surface (and
hence slope ) depends on the type of soil and friction angle , as
shown in Fig. 4. For shallow plates, Martin (1966, 1973), Biarez and
Barrraud (1968) and Porcheron and Martin (1968) conceived three
cases corresponding to distinct failure modes, depending on the soil
type:
i. granular soils (from loose to dense), where the failure surface
develops outwards with an average inclination = ;
ii. stiff clayey soils with N 15, where the failure surface develops
outwards with an average inclination = / 4; and
iii. soft clayey soils with b 15, where the failure surface develops
inwards with an average inclination = tan 1(0.2).
The sign convention used here is that b 0 for a failure surface that
propagates outwards from the plate and N 0 when this surface
propagates inwards. The above failure modes have been observed in
Fig. 8. Failure modes for inclined load in stiff soils: (a) shallow mode; a.1: vertical load;
a.2: inclined load; a.3: horizontal load; (b) deep mode; b.1: vertical load; b.2: inclined
load; b.3: horizontal load (Martin and Cochard, 1973).
model tests in homogeneous soils in the laboratory and have also been
conrmed by full-scale tests. The shallow mode for weak soils such as
saturated soft clays (case iii) is generally of minor importance in
practice, since in this case the weak soil above the foundation is almost
always replaced by more resistant, pre-selected compacted backlls as
in Fig. 7. In situations such as in Fig. 7a, the undrained tensile capacity of
the plate is estimated simply as cupbD, where cu = undrained shear
strength of the clay, pb = perimeter of the plate and D = plate depth. In
situations such as in Fig. 7b, the tensile capacity is estimated either as in
case (i) or (ii).
Similarly to conventional bearing capacity theories, the Grenoble
models do not make any allowance for shear dilatancy in cases of
dense sands and stiff clays. In situations where these aspects are to be
taken into account, one may rely on nite elements analysis. A simple
manner to stress such a dependency consists in performing nite
element analyses by using a code within which a MohrCoulomb
failure criterion allows for dilatancy.
The failure modes indicated in Figs. 4 and 6 are applicable to
homogeneous soils. Stewart (1985), Sutherland (1988) and Sakai and
Tanaka (2007) investigated the tensile capacity of layered soils. To
account for the inhomogeneity introduced by the compacted backll,
the tensile capacity is controlled by the weaker of the two materials:
backll or surrounding natural soil. If the backll is weaker than the
natural soil, the failure takes place at the vertical interface ( = 0), see
also Matsuo (1967). If the natural soil is weaker, the failure takes place
within the natural soil, with the equivalent conical failure surface
propagating outwards from the plate ( = / 4 or = ), see also
Matsuo (1967).
The effect of load inclination (with respect to the vertical
direction) of shallow foundations in homogeneous soils is shown in
Fig. 9. Tensile tests on inclined grillages: inuence of the compacted backll.
 M.P. Pacheco et al. / Engineering Geology 101 (2008) 226235
Fig. 8a (Martin and Cochard, 1973). However, depending on the load
inclination and the relative resistance of the compacted backll
with respect to the natural soil, the actual failure mode is likely to
depart from the idealized modes shown in Fig. 8a and produce
distinct failure angles L and R (at the left and right edges of the
plate), as in Fig. 9. The failure modes for shallow inclined plates at
moderate load inclination ( b 30) are similar to the ones for
horizontal plates under uplift loading (Martin, 1973). For steeper
inclinations ( N 30), the failure mode changes as the angle
increases, both in shallow (Fig. 8a) and deep modes of failure
(Fig. 8b). In all models discussed below, it is assumed that the load
is acting normal to the plate.
3. Tensile capacity equations in homogeneous soils Grenoble
model (Martin, 1966; Trn-v-nhim, 1971; Martin and Cochard,
1973; Martin, 1973)
3.1. Moderately inclined plates ( b 30) or horizontal plates ( = 0)
As with most methods available in the literature, the uplift capacity
Qult of plates installed at shallow depth can be expressed by tensile
capacity factors, similarly to bearing capacity formulae, as:
 
D D
 the smaller value. The tensile capacity factors applicable to Eqs. (1)
Qult pb cMc M
M qo Mq Sb D W cos 1
cos cos
where D = foundation depth, pb = plate perimeter, Sb = plate area,
c = soil cohesion, = unit weight of the soil, W = foundation self-
weight, and qo = external surcharge acting at the ground level. Mc,
(M + M) and Mq are dimensionless tensile capacity factors depend-
ing on the soil type and friction angle , calculated
by the set
D
of formulae shown in Appendix A. The term cMc cos M
M
qo Mq  in Eq. (1) accounts for the average shear stress acting on the
failure surface. Integration of the shear stresses provides in general
the dominant term in the foundation tensile capacity. In the absence
of external surcharge at the soil surface (the most common situation
in practice), the term qoMq vanishes. The foundation self-weight W is
negligible in the case of steel grillage foundations. The term SbD
accounts for the weight of soil above the plate.
Fig. 10. Uplift test results on footings in unsaturated residual soil from gneiss (full
symbols: = / 4; open symbols: = 0).
231
Table 1
Footing dimensions
Footing Deptha (m) Base width (m) Base thickness (m) Pedestal width (m)
F1 3.0 3.0 0.65 0.60
F2 3.0 3.0 0.65 0.60
F3 2.0 2.0 0.65 0.60
F4 2.5 2.5 0.65 0.60
a
With respect to the base of the footing.
3.2. Steeply inclined plates
The following applies to steeply inclined ( N 30) shallow
rectangular plates under concentric load acting normal to the plate:


Qult BL cNc 0:5BN
q0 Nq W cos 2
where B is the width and L is the length of a rectangular plate. The
tensile capacity factors Nc, N and Nq are given by the set of formulae
shown in Appendix B.
For load inclinations close to the limit = 30, it is advisable to
calculate the tensile capacity separately by Eqs. (1) and (2) and take
and (2) are easily obtained by spread sheets or programmable hand
calculators.
4. Test results
Martin (1966, 1973), and Martin and Cochard (1973) presented a
wide collection of tensile tests comparing quite successfully theore-
tical predictions obtained by the Grenoble models with laboratory and
eld results. The calculated results assumed generally the case of
homogeneous soils where the soil parameters were those given by the
strength of compacted soils in reduced scale tests in the laboratory or
by the strength of natural soils in case of full-scale tests in the eld,
with no assessment of the strength of the compacted backll. The
effect of the strength of the compacted backll is accounted for in the
test results presented next.
Progressive failure and lack of ductility in stiff soils are not taken
into account in the model. In situations where these aspects are to be
taken into account, good engineering judgement to select the proper
shear strength parameters is needed. Nevertheless, non-consideration
of such factors is on the safe side for practical applications.
The rst series of tests reported herein have been performed in the
city of Adrianpolis, Rio de Janeiro State, in a residual soil from
weathered gneiss. The footings were built in a mature residual clayey
soil (see also Vargas, 1953; Deere and Patton, 1971; Barata et al., 1978).
The measured uplift capacities of four full-scale uplift tests on square
footings to failure, Qult, measured, are compared with the Grenoble
model predictions, Qult, predicted (Eq. (1)) in Fig. 10, see also Table 1.
The full symbols are for = / 4 (failure within natural soil) and the
open symbols are for = 0 (failure at natural soilbackll interface).
Barata et al. (1978, 1979) and Danziger (1983) provide a thorough
interpretation of eld and laboratory investigations at this site. The
NSPT values were in the range 1530. Data from triaxial CU tests
provided average c = 28.9 kPa and = 25.5. The average unit weight
of the compacted soil is 18.7 kN/m3. It should be pointed out that the
Brazilian SPT delivers an energy about 67.3 to 72.9% (e.g., Dcourt et
al., 1989; Belincanta and Cintra, 1998) up to 83% (Cavalcante, 2002;
Cavalcante et al., 2004; Danziger et al., 2006a) of the theoretical free
fall energy of 474 J to the rod stem, i.e., the Brazilian NSPT values
referred to in this paper should be multiplied by a correction factor
in the range 1.121.38 in order to obtain N60, the number of blows
corresponding to the reference energy of 60% of 474 J (ISSMFE,
1989).
232 M.P. Pacheco et al. / Engineering Geology 101 (2008) 226235
Fig. 11. Cracks at the ground level at failure; uplift test on (a) footing F-2 ( = 0); (b) footing F-3 ( = / 4).
Fig. 11a shows the cracks mobilized during the tensile test on footing
F-2. The dotted lines indicate the horizontal projection of the
3.0 m 3.0 m footing base and represent also the excavation limits.
The 0.4 m 0.4 m wire mesh used to track the propagation of surface
cracks is also indicated in the gure. In this test, the compacted backll
did not match the higher strength of the natural residual soil and cracks
developed mostly within the compacted soil limited by the interface
between the backll and the natural soil ( = 0). The same pattern was
observed in the test of footing F-1. In contrast, Fig. 11b shows the cracks
formed at the end of the test on footing F-3, where the strengths of the
natural and compacted soils are comparable. The failure surface in this
test progressed markedly beyond the excavation limits ( = / 4). The
same pattern has been observed in the test of footing F-4. The agreement
between test results and predicted values supports these observations.
The second series of tests have been performed in the surroundings of
the city of Itapeva, close to the border of the Cenozoic sediment in Southern
Brazil, which covers most of the States of So Paulo and Paran. This
sediment has a thickness generally no greater than 10 m, and has been
subjected to an intense process of laterization. The soils of the Cenozoic
sediment may be presented as clay or sand, depending on its origin. The rst
meters of the prole are almost always porous and unsaturated (Giachetti et
al., 1993).
Fig. 12. Uplift test results on inclined grillages in porous unsaturated clay (full symbols:
d / D = 5%; open symbols: d / D = 10%).
Fig. 12 shows the results of eight full-scale tensile tests on
rectangular 1.35 m 0.50 m steel grillages for guyed towers embedded
in porous unsaturated clay with NSPT values in the range of 23 (Barata
et al., 1985; Pereira Pinto, 1985). The embedment depths are given in
Table 2. The load inclination was = 33.5 applied orthogonally to the
grillage in all tests. Each foundation was loaded gradually to failure and
then unloaded. Then a side excavation was open and the foundation
reloaded to observe the corresponding failure modes. The backll
resistance was higher than the resistance of the natural soil in all tests.
For calculation purposes the strength parameters in all direct shear
tests have been estimated for displacement ratios d / Db of 5% and 10%,
where d is the shear displacement and Db the width of the shear box.
The average strength parameters are c = 11 kPa; = 23.3 (d / Db = 5%)
and c = 20.8 kPa, = 24.8 (d / Db = 10%). The average unit weight of the
natural porous clay is p = 14.64 kN/m3, and the average unit weight of
the compacted backll is c = 18.24 kN/m3. Pereira Pinto (1985)
provides a thorough interpretation of eld and laboratory investiga-
tions at this site.
Theoretical predictions calculated by Grenoble model are
compared to the tensile failure load obtained in the eld tests in
Fig. 12. The full symbols refer to d / Db = 5% and the open symbols to
d / Db = 10%. The lower failure loads (grillages G-1 and G-3) are in
good agreement with the predicted values for d / Db = 5%. The
higher failure loads (other grillages) are in good agreement with the
values predicted by the Grenoble model for d / Db = 10%. The more
resistant backll has contributed to form two distinct actual failure
angles L (left) b R (right) at the edges of the grillage as shown in
Fig. 9. The angle L was close to = / 4 (conforming to Grenoble
model), whereas R was signicantly larger than L in all tests. Thus
good engineering judgment is required to select the strength
parameters to be used in the design of inclined foundations in practice,
due to the inuence of the compacted backll. For safe design, however,
it is recommended to choose the strength parameters c, from the
smaller values corresponding either to the natural soil or to the
compacted backll. As with vertical tensioned foundations, proper
backll compaction is essential for adequate foundation performance.
Table 2
Grillage depthsa
Grillage Depth (m) Grillage Depth (m)
G1 1.28 G5 1.40
G2 1.46 G6 1.31
G3 1.32 G7 1.45
G4 1.46 G8 1.33
a
With respect to the middle of the inclined excavation.
 M.P. Pacheco et al. / Engineering Geology 101 (2008) 226235 233

Fig. 13. Failure process in a grillage during uplift testing: (a) beginning at the upper foundation edge; (b) and (c) cracks progressing towards the ground level; (d) general view of failure.

Laboratory and in situ tensile tests show that the failure process initiates Mc, (M + M) and Mq are dimensionless tensile capacity factors
at the upper foundation edge. This has been demonstrated by Pereira depending on the friction angle and calculated by the following set
Pinto (1985) for in situ tests in unsaturated tropical soils (Fig. 13) and by of formulae:
e.g., Sakai and Tanaka (2007) for laboratory tests in sands.
 
tan D 1
5. Conclusions Mc Mco 1
2 R cos

The main types of failure modes of shallow foundations under tensile  

tan f tan
loading for transmission line towers are reviewed in this paper. Mco cos
1
tan
H tan

Conceptual distinctions between shallow and deep modes of failure are
also reviewed, including possible modes of shallow failure according to  
f
cos n sin
cosm
the applied load inclination. The basic theoretical framework follows the tan
H 4 2 cos nsin
cosm
models developed at the University of Grenoble, which allow broad
applicability to different types of soils, failure modes, load inclinations,
embedment depths and good agreement with laboratory and full-scale

m
tests on different types of foundations in a wide variety of soils. As with 4 2
conventional bearing capacity theories, the most relevant model limita-
sin n sin
sin m
tion refers to its applicability to homogeneous soils. Proper adjustments of
Grenoble models have been discussed to account for the effect of  

 tan D 1
inhomogeneity provided by the compacted backll. The failure modes of M
M M
o Mo 1
3 R cos
footings under vertical tensile loading in a stiff unsaturated residual soil
from weathered gneiss showing either about the same or higher strength sin
cos
2
than the backll strength have been discussed. Similarly, the failure mode M
o M o
2 cos2
of inclined steel grillages in a porous unsaturated Cenozoic sediment less
 
resistant than the backll has also been discussed. In both cases, proper tan D 1
Mq Mqo 1
observation of the corresponding failure surfaces enabled modications 2 R cos
into Grenoble models to provide reasonable predictions for practical
applications. Mq o M co tan
tan

Appendix A
is the load inclination to the vertical (which is zero for horizontal
Tensile capacity factors for shallow plates at moderate load plates) and R is the radius of a circular plate or the equivalent radius of a
inclination ( b 30) or horizontal plates ( = 0): Grenoble model (Martin rectangular plate with dimensions BL, calculated as R=(B+L)/, except in
1966, 1973; Martin and Cochard, 1973) the case of saturated clays, where R=(B+L)/4. D is the plate depth, pb the
  plate perimeter, Sb the plate area, c the soil cohesion, the unit weight of
D D
 the soil, W the self-weight of the foundation, and qo the external surcharge
Qult pb cMc M
M qo Mq Sb D W cos
cos cos acting at the ground level.
234 M.P. Pacheco et al. / Engineering Geology 101 (2008) 226235

Appendix B References

Tensile capacity factors for shallow plates at steep load inclination Adams, J.I., Hayes, D.C., 1967. The uplift capacity of shallow foundations. Ontario Hydro
Research Quarterly 19 (1).
( N 30): Grenoble model (Martin and Cochard, 1973) Adams, J.I., Klym, T.W., 1972. A study of anchorages for transmission tower foundations.

 Canadian Geotechnical Journal 9 (1), 89104.
Qult BL cNc 0:5BN
q0 Nq W cos Ali, M.S., 1968. Pullout resistance of anchor plates and anchor piles in soft bentonite clay.
M.Sc. thesis, Duke University, Duke Soil Mechanics Series No. 17.
Andersen, K.H., Dyvik, R., Schrder, K., 1992. Pull-out capacity analyses of suction
Nc, N and Nq are dimensionless tensile capacity factors depending anchors for tension leg platforms. Proceedings, 6th International Conference on the
on the friction angle and calculated by the following set of formulae: Behaviour of Offshore Structures, BOSS'92, London, vol. 2, pp. 13111322.
Andersen, K.H., Dyvik, R., Schrder, K., Hansteen, O.E., Bysveen, S., 1993. Field tests of
    2
D 1 B D 1 anchors in clay. II: predictions and interpretation. Journal of Geotechnical
N
A
B
sin C
E
sin Engineering 119 (10), 15321549 ASCE.
 B 2  L B 2 Balla, ., 1961. The resistance to breaking out of mushroom foundations for pylons.
B D 1 Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Nq Bq Cq Eq sin
L B 2 Engineering, Paris, vol 1, pp. 569576.
Barata, F.E., Pacheco, M.P., Danziger, F.A.B., 1978. Uplift tests on drilled piers and footings
built in residual soil. Proceedings, 6th Brazilian Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Nc Nq cot
Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 3, pp. 137.
Barata, F.E., Pacheco, M.P., Danziger, F.A.B., Pereira Pinto, C., 1979. Foundations under
A
bo po pulling loads in residual soil analysis and application of the results of load tests.
Proceedings, 6th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation

B
2 bo0 po0
Engineering, Lima, vol. II, pp. 165176.
Barata, F.E., Danziger, F.A.B., Pereira Pinto, C., 1985. Behaviour of inclined plates in
residual soil submitted to uplift load. Proceedings, XI International Conference on
! Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, vol. 4, pp. 21632166.
bo0 b
po0 p
Batmanabane, L., 1973. Rsistance maximale l'arrachement des ancrages en milieu
C
2 sin
cohrent. Thse de Docteur-Ingnieur, Universit de Grenoble.
l2 l1
 Belincanta, A., Cintra, J.C.A., 1998. Intervenient factors on the variants of the ABNT
E
2 sin
bo0 b
po0 p
method for the execution of SPT (in Portuguese). Soils and Rocks, Brazilian
Geotechnical Journal 21 (3), 119133.
Bhatnagar, R.S., 1969. Pullout resistance of anchors in silty clay. M.Sc. thesis, Duke
Bq 0:5B
University, Duke Soil Mechanics Series No. 18.
Biarez, J., Barraud, Y., 1968. Adaptation des fondations de pylones au terrain par les
! mthodes de la mchanique des sols. Rapport 22-06 de la CIGR, Paris.
bo0 b
po0 p0
Cavalcante, E.H., 2002. Theoreticalexperimental investigation on SPT (in Portuguese).
Cq 2 sin
D.Sc. thesis, COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
l2 l1
Cavalcante, E.H., Danziger, F.A.B., Danziger, B.R., 2004. Estimating the SPT penetration
 resistance from rod penetration based on instrumentation. Proceedings, 2nd
Eq 2 sin
bo0 b0
po0 p0
International Conference on Site Characterization, ISC'2, Porto, vol. 1, pp. 293298.
Danziger, F.A.B., 1983. Ultimate capacity of foundations under vertical tension load (in
Portuguese). M.Sc. thesis, COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
bo sin exp 0:61:7
Danziger, F.A.B., Pereira Pinto, C., Danziger, B.R., 1989. Uplift load tests on grillages for
guyed towers in Itaipu transmission system. Proceedings, XII International
  Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 2,
1
po sin
exp 2:45 0:8
pp. 11931196.
Danziger, F.A.B., Danziger, B.R., Cavalcante, E.H., 2006a. Discussion of review of SPT short
rod corrections by Chris R. Daniel, John A. Howie, R. Scott Jackson, and Brian Walker.
b
cos Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 132 (12), 16341637
ASCE.
Danziger, F.A.B., Danziger, B.R., Pacheco, M.P., 2006b. The simultaneous use of piles and
p
1:1 cos prestressed anchors in foundation design. Engineering Geology 87, 163177.
q Das, B.M., 1975. Pullout resistance of vertical anchors. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division 101 (1), 8791 ASCE.
0 1 sin2
sin2 sin
cos
1 sin
Das, B.M., 1978. Model tests for uplift capacity of foundations in clay. Soils and
bo q
2 2 Foundations 18 (2), 1724.
1 sin
1 sin
sin sin
cos Das, B.M., 1980. A procedure for estimation of ultimate uplift capacity of foundations in
clay. Soils and Foundations 20 (1), 7782.
1 sin
Das, B.M., Seeley, G.R., 1975a. Inclined load resistance of anchors in sand. Journal of the
po0 exp 2 tan
Geotechnical Engineering Division 101 (9), 995998 ASCE.
1 sin
Das, B.M., Seeley, G.R., 1975b. Breakout resistance of shallow horizontal anchors. Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 101 (9), 9991003 ASCE.
q

2
 Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., 1989. Holding capacity of inclined square plate anchors in clay. Soils
0 cos
2 sin2
cos
2 sin
2 sin
cos
2 sin
2 and Foundations 29 (3), 138144.
b
q

2
 Das, B.M., Moreno, R., Dallo, K.F., 1985. Ultimate pullout capacity of shallow vertical
1 sin
2 sin2
cos
2 sin
2 sin
cos
2 sin
2 anchors in clay. Soils and Foundations 25 (2), 148152.
Davie, J.R., Sutherland, H.B., 1977. Uplift resistance of cohesive soils. Journal of the
cos
h i Geotechnical Engineering Division 103 (9), 935952 ASCE.
p
0 exp
tan
Davie, J.R., Sutherland, H.B., 1978. Modeling of clay uplift resistance. Journal of the
1 sin
2 Geotechnical Engineering Division 104 (6), 755760 ASCE.
  Dcourt, L., Belincanta, A., Quaresma Filho, A.R., 1989. Brazilian experience on SPT.

Supplementary Contributions by the Brazilian Society of Soil Mechanics, published
l1 tan exp 2 tan
 on the occasion of the 12th ICSMFE, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 4954.
4 2
Deere, D.U., Patton, F.D., 1971. Slope stability in residual soils. Proceedings, Fourth
h
i Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Puerto
 
n

sin 4 2 22
Rico, vol. 1, pp. 87170.
l2 tan h i Dickin, E.A., 1988. Uplift behaviour of horizontal anchor plates in sand. Journal of
4 2 sin

n Geotechnical Engineering 114 (11), 13001317 ASCE.
4 2 2 2
Dickin, E.A., Leung, C.F., 1983. Centrifugal model tests on vertical anchor plates. Journal
sin n sin sin
of Geotechnical Engineering 109 (12), 15031525 ASCE.
Dickin, E.A., Leung, C.F., 1985. Evaluation of design methods for vertical anchor plates.
N 30 is the load inclination to the vertical. B is the width and L is Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 111 (4), 500520 ASCE.
Dyvik, R., Andersen, K.H., Hansen, S.B., Christophersen, H.P., 1993. Field tests of anchors
the length of a rectangular plate. W is the self-weight of the in clay. I: description. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 119 (10), 15151531
foundation and qo the external surcharge acting at the ground level. ASCE.
 M.P. Pacheco et al. / Engineering Geology 101 (2008) 226235
Esquivel-Daz, R.F., 1967. Pullout resistance of deeply buried anchors in sand. M.Sc.
thesis, Duke University, Duke Soil Mechanics Series No. 8.
Garcia, O.C., 2005. The inuence of backll quality on the uplift capacity of foundations
under uplift loading (in Portuguese). M.Sc. thesis, COPPE, Federal University of Rio
de Janeiro.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., 1992. Stresses and strains around helical screw anchors in sand.
Soils and Foundations 32 (4), 2742.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., 1994a. Ultimate pullout resistance of single vertical anchors.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 31 (5), 661672.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., 1994b. Ultimate pullout resistance of groups of vertical anchors.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 31 (5), 673682.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., Hanna, M., 1991a. Uplift behavior of screw anchors in sand. I: dry
sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 117 (5), 773793 ASCE.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., Hanna, M., 1991b. Uplift behavior of screw anchors in sand. II:
hydrostatic and ow conditions. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 117 (5),
794808 ASCE.
Ghaly, A., Hanna, A., Ranjan, G., Hanna, M., 1991c. Helical anchors in dry and submerged
sand subjected to surcharge. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 117 (10),
14631470 ASCE.
Giachetti, H.L., Rhm, S.A., Nogueira, J.B., Cintra, J.C.A., 1993. Geotechnical properties of
the Cenozoic sediment (in Portuguese). In Soils of the State of So Paulo, chapter 6,
pp. 143175. ABMS-NRSP and Dep. of Geotechnics, So Carlos Eng. School, USP, So
Paulo.
Gurung, S.B., Nakazima, Y., Sakajo, S., Kusakabe, O., 1998. Centrifugal modeling of
enlarged base foundation subjected to pull-out force. Soils and Foundations 38 (4),
105113.
Hanna, A., Ghaly, A., 1992. Effects of Ko and overconsolidation on uplift capacity. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering 118 (9), 14491469 ASCE.
Ismael, N.F., 1989. Field tests on bored piles subject to axial and oblique pull. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 115 (11), 15881598 ASCE.
Ismael, N.F., Klym, T.W., 1978. Behavior of rigid piers in layered cohesive soils. Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division 104 (8), 10611074 ASCE.
Ismael, N.F., Klym, T.W., 1979. Uplift and bearing capacity of short piers in sand. Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 105 (5), 579594 ASCE.
Ismael, N.F., Al-Sanad, H.A., 1986. Uplift capacity of bored piles in calcareous soils.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 112 (10), 928940 ASCE.
ISSMFE, 1989. International reference test procedure for the standard penetration test
(SPT). Report of the ISSMFE Technical Committee on Penetration Testing of Soils
TC 16, with Reference Test Procedures CPT SPT DP WST, pp. 1719. Rufer, A.P., Mahler, C.F., 1989. Finite element analysis of plates and foundations.
Kulhawy, F.H., 1985. Drained uplift capacity of drilled shafts. Proceedings, 11th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San
Francisco, vol. 3, pp. 15491552.
Kulhawy, F.H., Stewart, H.E., 1994. Uplift loaddisplacement behavior of grillage
foundations. Proceedings, ASCE GSP 40 on Vertical and horizontal deformations
of foundations and embankments, New York, pp. 233244.
Kulhawy, F.H., Kozera, D.W., Withiam, J.L., 1979. Uplift testing of model drilled shafts in
sand. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 105 (1), 3147 ASCE.
Lutenegger, A.J., Miller, G.A., 1994. Uplift capacity of small-diameter drilled shafts from
in situ tests. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 120 (8), 13621380 ASCE.
Macdonald, H.F., 1963. Uplift resistance of caisson piles in sand. M.Sc. thesis, Nova Scotia
Technical College.
Martin, D., 1963. Fondations profondes sollicites l'arrachement en milieu cohrent
tridimensionnel. Thse de Doctorat de Spcialit, Universit de Grenoble.
Martin, D., 1966. tude la rupture de diffrents ancrages sollicites verticalement.
Thse de Docteur-Ingnieur, Universit de Grenoble.
Martin, D., 1973. Calcul de pieux et fondations a dalle des pylnes de transport d'nergie
lectrique, tude thorique e d'ssais en laboratoire et in-situ. Proceedings, Institut
Technique du Batiment et des Traveaux Public, Supplment au No. 307-308.
Martin, D., Cochard, A., 1973. Design of Anchor Plates. Rapport 22-10 de la CIGR, Paris.
Matsuo, M., 1967. Study on the uplift resistance of footing (I). Soil and Foundation VII (4),
137.
Matsuo, M., 1968. Study on the uplift resistance of footing (II). Soil and Foundation VIII
(1), 1848.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1973a. The uplift capacity of foundations under oblique loads. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 10 (1), 6470.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1973b. Uplift resistance of inclined anchors and piles. Proceedings, 8th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow,
vol. 2, pp. 167172.
Meyerhof, G.G., Adams, J.I., 1968. The ultimate uplift capacity of foundations. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal V (4), 225244.
Montel, B., 1963. Contribution l'tude des fondations sollicites l'arrachement.
Phnomne plan, milieux pulverulent. Thse de Doctorat de Specialit, Universit
de Grenoble.
235
Murray, E.J., Geddes, J.D., 1987. Uplift of anchor plates in sand. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 113 (3), 202215 ASCE.
Ovesen, N.K., 1981. Centrifuge tests of the uplift capacity of anchors. Proceedings, X
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stock-
holm, vol. 1, pp. 717722.
Pereira Pinto, C.,1985. Behavior of anchors for guyed towers in residual soil (in Portuguese).
M.Sc. thesis, COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Phoon, K.K., Kulhawy, F.H., Grigoriu, M.D., 2003a. Multiple resistance factor design for
shallow transmission line structure foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 129 (9), 807818 ASCE.
Phoon, K.K., Kulhawy, F.H., Grigoriu, M.D., 2003b. Development of a reliability-based
design framework for transmission line structure foundations. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129 (9), 798806 ASCE.
Porcheron, Y., Martin, D., 1968. tude la rupture des fondations de pilnes sollicites
l'arrachement. Rseaux Electriques, Matriels lectriques 2, 8398.
Rao, K.S.S., Kumar, J., 1994. Vertical uplift capacity of horizontal anchors. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 120 (7), 11341147 ASCE.
Ribier, B., 1962. tude des argiles fortement plastiques et essais de soulvement des
pieux. Thse de Doctorat de Specialit, Universit de Grenoble.
Rowe, R.K., 1978. Soil structure interaction analysis and its application to the prediction
of anchor plate behavior. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.
Rowe, R.K., Booker, J.R., 1979a. A method of analysis for horizontally embedded anchors
in an elastic soil. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics 3, 187203.
Rowe, R.K., Booker, J.R., 1979b. The analysis of inclined anchor plates. Proceedings, 3th
International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Aachen, pp.12271236.
Rowe, R.K., Booker, J.R., 1980. The elastic response of multiple underream anchors.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 4,
313332.
Rowe, R.K., Davis, E.H., 1982a. The behavior of anchor plates in clay. Gotechnique 32 (1),
923.
Rowe, R.K., Davis, E.H., 1982b. The behavior of anchor plates in sand. Gotechnique 32 (1),
2541.
Rufer dos Santos, A.P., 1985. Analysis of foundations submitted to pull-out forces by the
nite element method (in Portuguese). M.Sc. thesis, COPPE, Federal University of
Rio de Janeiro.
Rufer dos Santos, A.P., 1999. Ultimate capacity of foundations under uplift load on
slopes (in Portuguese). Ph.D. thesis, COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Proceedings, 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 2, pp. 12091212.
Sakai, T., Tanaka, T., 2007. Experimental and numerical study of uplift behavior of
shallow circular anchor in two-layered sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 133 (4), 469477 ASCE.
Sarac, Dz., 1989. The uplift capacity of shallow buried anchor slabs. Proceedings, 12th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de
Janeiro, vol. 2, pp. 12131216.
Spence, B.E., 1965. Uplift resistance of piles with enlarged bases in clay. M.Sc. thesis,
Nova Scotia Technical College.
Stewart, W., 1985. Uplift capacity of circular plate anchors in layered soil. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 22 (4), 589592.
Sutherland, H.B., 1965. Model studies for shaft raising through cohesionless soils.
Proceedings, 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Montreal, vol. 2, pp. 410413.
Sutherland, H.B., 1988. Uplift resistance of soils. Gotechnique 38 (4), 493516.
Trn-V-Nhim, 1971. Force portante limite des fondations supercielles et rsistance
maximale l'arrachement des ancrages. tude d'un appareil portable destin la
reconnaissance sommaire du sol en place: le Pnvane. Thse de Docteur-Ingnieur,
Universit de Grenoble.
Trautmann, C.H., Kulhawy, F.H., 1988. Uplift loaddisplacement behavior of spread
foundations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 114 (2), 168184 ASCE.
Vargas, M., 1953. Some engineering properties of residual clay soils occurring in
Southern Brazil. Proceedings, Third International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Zurich, vol. 1, pp. 6771.
Vermeer, P.A., Sutjiadi, W., 1985. The uplift resistance of shallow embedded anchors.
Proceedings, 11th Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San
Francisco, vol. 3, pp. 16351638.
Vesic, A.S., 1969. Breakout Resistance of Objects Embedded in Ocean Bottom. Duke Soil
Mechanics Series No. 20.
Wiseman, R.J., 1966. Uplift resistance of groups of bulbous piles in sand. M.Sc. thesis,
Nova Scotia Technical College.