Foundation uplift resistance: the effects of

foundation type and of seasonal changes

in ground conditions
M.J. Vanner, M.A., M.lnst. P.

Indexing terms: Transmission and distribution plant, Cables and overhead lines

Abstract: Various theories for estimating foundation uplift design are discussed. The shape of the foundation
and the way it has been constructed, the type of applied loading and the strength of the soil surrounding the
foundation, all affect its uplift behaviour. Tests on all these aspects are described. It is possible that any one
of the above factors could be the cause of a foundation being under design strength, but the combination of
more than one factor could be critical. Proposals are made for further studies, the conclusions from which
should allow more accurate designs to be made in the future.

1 Introduction foundation behaviour, but that, because of the inhomogeneity

Frequently the design and construction procedures for founda-
tions of overhead line towers are considered unsophisticated
by engineers not closely concerned with foundation work. It is
true that the foundations for the smaller transmission lines,
and for those constructed at historically earlier times, were
simple in concept. However, as transmission lines have grown
in size, so have the foundations to support them. The larger
size of foundations has meant that changes in procedures have
been required to cope with problems found, both with design
and with construction. Overhead lines are now frequently
routed (perhaps for amenity reasons) through areas where
ground conditions are poor; as a result special foundations
have to be designed for the conditions occurring, taking into
account the construction techniques available.
The traditional foundation used for overhead-line towers
was of mass concrete construction. It was designed on what
was considered a fairly conservative basis, such that the founda-
tion would be suitable for the majority of soil conditions in
which it was expected it would be used, and, as a result, little
soil mechanics' expertise was required on site: decision making
could be left to field staff, unless something was obviously
wrong. The overhead-line-tower foundation differs from most
other civil-engineering foundations in that, in addition to
being subjected to compression, it has to resist uplift loads.
The behaviour of foundations under tension loads is outside
the experience of most engineers and, in fact, eminent civil
engineers have been heard to say, 'you put in the full dead
weight of concrete that you require, or you grout a cable
down into the rock underneath'. It is no surprise, therefore,
to discover that less experienced engineers made errors in this
assessment of uplift behaviour.
In the early 1970s, ground anchorages became a partially
accepted construction; and, in these, design was attempted
on the sort of empirical basis used since the 1930s by overhead-
line engineers. The growth of the use of ground anchorages,
and of the papers published by contractors and by academics,
has perhaps suggested that now the civil engineering profession
knows everything about uplift loading on foundations. This
assumption is false, as the overhead-line-foundation expert will
confirm. Investigations into the mechanisms of uplift founda-
tion failure have taken place in various countries, and at frequent
intervals since the 1950s. The consensus of opinion is that we
now have a reasonable qualitative understanding of tower-
Paper 2169C (P7), first received 23rd February and in revised form
23rd June 1982
The author is with the Power Transmission Division, Balfour Beatty
Power Construction Limited, 7 Mayday Road, Thornton Heath, Surrey
CR4 7 XA, England
of ground and other factors of variation, we have no perfectly
satisfactory quantitative method of analysis.
Foundations resist uplift forces by differing processes,
depending on the method of construction used and on the
relative depth and width of the foundation; furthermore, the
properties of the soil, at any period of time, will have an
important effect on the resistance generated by the footing.
This paper summarises the conclusions of investigations
carried out recently into uplift foundation behaviour, and an
attempt is made to indicate new lines of thought which may
be considered advantageous for foundation designers in the
future.
2 Methods of uplift design
2.1 Empirical methods
The most usual method used to assess the ultimate uplift
capacity of a foundation is to equate its capacity to the
weight of soil contained in a truncated cone rising to ground
level from the base of the foundation. In the UK the weight has
traditionally been assessed using a density of soil of 1600 kg/m 3
(1001b/ft3) and a half angle of the frustum of 30° [1].
Similar values were used in many other countries, though the
German VDE specification [2] varied the parameters to take
account of the method of construction (undercut, cast directly
against soil or against formwork), the type of soil (cohesive or
frictional) and the relation between depth and plan area of the
block.
One other method, which has had some international
acceptance, is the shear method introduced by Killer [3]. The
estimation of uplift resistance is based on the weight of founda-
tion and the soil vertically above it, combined with a shear
force assumed to act over the vertical planes rising from the
foundation base to the soil surface. It was accepted that shear
was progressive and the values of shear coefficient, used in the
Killer formula, are thus smaller than the shear strength of the
soil in which the foundation is constructed. The values quoted
for shear coefficient were based on tests carried out on a range
of relatively small foundations. Strictly speaking, tests should
be carried out in each relevant soil type on typical examples of
the foundations it is wished to use, in order to estimate the
shear coefficients involved. It must be stressed that extra-
polation of results into the realm of much larger or stronger
foundations can lead to the occurence of extreme errors.
This concept of testing foundations to prove that the design
formula being used is valid should also apply to the use of the
frustrum theory, as changes in soil types or perhaps, even more

IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1982 0143-7046/82/060295 + 11 $01.50/0 295
importantly, changes in the scale and size of the foundations
can render the formula in use invalid.
2.2 Recent soil mechanics theories related to uplift resistance
Recent work on the design of overhead-line-tower foundations
has been the subject of discussion by the foundation working
group reporting to study committee 22 'overhead lines' of
CIGRE. Three main theoretical and practical investigations
were carried out by teams in France, Italy and the UK. The
techniques and analyses were related to the method of founda-
tion construction used in each country, and it was agreed that
each system could be of use for particular problems. Appendix
10.1 introduces some of the basic ideas of the theories, but a
summary of the formulas is given below. This paper does not
analyse or compare the previously published works, but it
uses them to show the superiority of a soil mechanics' concept
over the empirical methods when considering the variation of
foundation strength with soil moisture content.
The French investigation (Biarez and Barraud [4]) was
related to foundations cast directly against the undisturbed
soil, but was checked against a variety of test results made
available to CIGRJ6. The formulas are of least accuracy when
used for formed foundations with fill to the sides and above.
Basically, the French system considers shear strength along a
surface rising from the base of the foundation, at a specified
angle depending on the soil type. In addition, the weight of
foundation and soil within the shear plane is included in the
uplift resistance. The following is the generalised equation:
Ft = S(CMC qMq) + P + Ps
0)
where
S = lateral area rising from the base of the foundation
to the surface of the soil
C = apparent cohesion of soil
0 = angle of shearing resistance of soil
y = soil bulk density
P = weight of concrete in the foundation
Ps = weight of soil above the foundation
D = total depth of foundation
q = overburden pressure (for foundations set below
critical depth)
Mc, MQ, My, Mq = constants depending on the soil type.
Soils are split into three categories:
(a) saturated cohesive soils of low consistency, C¥=0 and
0<15°
(b) unsaturated cohesive soils with internal friction, C¥= 0
and0>15°
(c) frictional soils, C = 0 and <p > 20°
For soil types (b) and (c) there is a critical depth of foundation
installation, below which shear failure is localised near the
pad circumference.
The Italian study (Cauzillo [5]) does not consider the effect
of backfill areas, but does relate the failure method to the
foundation shape. The failure is assumed to be along the path
of a logarithmic spiral, again with a critical depth at which
the plastic zone extends just to the ground surface from the
junction between the pad and chimney.
The generalised equation is:
Ft = perimeter (CKt + byK7 + bdyK3) + P (2)
Where Kt are constants depending on the shape of the founda-
tion base and on the angle of soil friction, b is the pad overhang
and d is the depth of soil above the log spiral and other symbols
are as for eqn. 1.
The UK investigation (Vanner [6, 7]) was primarily con-
cerned with foundations constructed within formwork and
with backfill to the sides and above. The technique adopted
was also to consider shear strength along a surface rising from
296
the base of the foundation, but remaining within the fill or
along the fill/undisturbed soil interface. The following gener-
alised equation can be quoted:
Ft = (3)
Where Zc and Z 0 are constants depending on soil type, and the
other symbols are as for eqn. 1.
One difference is that the weight of soil within the assumed
shear volume is not included, as it was felt that failure was
progressive, and so all components of resistance would not be
present at the same time.
Depending on depth/plan area ratio there are changes in
assumed soil failure patterns, with local failure planes being
considered for deeper foundations. Comparison of the studies
shows that the research teams were in agreement about the
general mechanisms of failure. It is obvious, however, that
these vary from those assumed for the empirical methods.
3 Effects of variation in construction technique on the
strength of foundations
3.1 Empirical analysis
In many specifications there is a clause which restricts the
permissible uplift resistance if the foundation does not have a
definite pad or 'bell' at its base. Such a clause is found in the
UK specification [1], where it states that 'the maximum angle
between base and side of concrete foundation for uplift
purposes shall be 70°'. This requirement means that founda-
tions are normally cast within pyramid formwork, which
gives the twin advantages of reducing concrete volume and,
at the same time, allowing the uplift frustum to be calculated
from the outside edge of the foundation base. (If the base of
the foundation has sides with the included angles greater than
70°, i.e. vertical sides or nearly so, then the assumed frustum
has to be taken from the top of the block edges.)
The UK specification does not differentiate between the
behaviour of foundations undercut, cast against undisturbed
soil or cast in formwork and surrounded by fill. The shape of
the foundation is the important design parameter.
This attitude is modified slightly in the specifications issued
by some consulting engineers, who state that, if a foundation
block is cast directly against or is cut into undisturbed soil for
a height of 250 mm, then the uplift resisting frustum may be
considered to start from the bottom of the vertical edges of
the block. Otherwise the frustum is assumed to start from the
top of the block edges.
The German specification [2] differentiates quite clearly
between a foundation undercut horizontally 200 mm or more
into undisturbed ground, a foundation cast directly against
undisturbed ground and one cast within formwork. The speci-
fication indicates that as you change from the undercut to the
formed construction so you reduce the possible uplift resistance
of the foundation.
The US Bureau of Reclamation Code [8] indicates the
merit in undercutting the pad into undisturbed material, as
such a practice could increase uplift resistance by a factor of
2 to 3 times and, at the same time, could reduce movement
prior to pull-out. However, any increased resistance is not
allowed when calculating uplift, although, in certain circum-
stances, the calculations of stability are improved when
undercut foundations can be considered.
3.2 Soil mechanics analysis
The available soil mechanics' theories do not allow detailed
assessment of the results of different construction techniques.
Biarez and Barraud give different calculations for piles and for
pad and chimneys; but there is no further refinement of the
latter, depending on whether they are undercut, cast against
IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1982
virgin soil or against backfill. Construction techniques are
mentioned in the paper but mainly to stress the importance of
maintaining the lateral pressure on the soil when excavation
take place. Soil properties are assumed to be those of the
virgin soil.
Parr and Vanner [9] investigated pad and pyramid founda-
tions with backfill round them and also pyramids undercut
into virgin soil. Although the report describes, qualitatively,
the results of the different construction techniques, the soil
mechanics analysis was based entirely on foundations sur-
rounded by backfill.
It is possible that the Parr and Vanner, or the Vanner, math-
ematical relations could be extended to take account of
different degrees of casting against or into undisturbed soil, by
means of empirical assessment of the values of the soil proper-
ties to be assumed (i.e. if virgin soil properties or only a certain
proportion of those values should be used). There is, however,
no experimental verification of values which could be chosen.
3.3 Practical tests on improvement due to the technique
of installation
Tests on foundations and an analysis of their comparative
behaviour had obviously taken place to allow the US Bureau
of Reclamation to produce design standard 10 in 1951. How-
ever, details of the tests are not available and recent experience
appears to be restricted to a few series of tests.
In the first series, ERA [9], after they had tested founda-
tions on a 66 kV line, installed a series of test foundations to
investigate foundation shape and installation techniques. The
conclusions of the study were:
(c) The strength of a foundation, which is not undercut or
cast for any considerable distance against undisturbed soil,
is mainly determined by the properties of the backfill
(Z?) Pyramid-shaped foundations have, in weaker backfills, a
superiority over flat blocks owing to the 'wedging' action
caused by the pyramid. However, very steep pyramids do not
necessarily show this superiority, because they tend to 'plough
through' the backfill more readily than medium-base-angle
pyramids.
(c) Foundations undercut into undisturbed ground display
two advantages over foundations cast within formwork: first,
the uplift resistance is greateT and does not vary with incon-
sistences in the backfill strength and, secondly, the uplift
movement is always very much less than that of a foundation
not undercut. Foundations cast within formwork, in most
cases, exhibit considerable movement under application of ten-
sion, and what could be argued as excessive uplift when the
ultimate load is reached. Backfill which is wet or loose, and
therefore weak, allows more movement than one which is
strong.
Reports are available of two series of tests carried out in the
USA. Turner [10] investigated the behaviour of grillage,
straight shaft and underreamed augered footings. The grillage
foundation exhibited less strength than had been expected,
and the investigators discovered, as had ERA, the difficulty
of compacting the backfill. The underreamed foundation
behaved well and reasonable analysis could be made of its
behaviour (possibly because of the homogeneity of the soils
used for the augered shafts). The straight shafted foundation
was also generally satisfactory, but its performance depended
on the method of construction, the position of the water table
and the susceptibility of the soil to lose strength through re-
moulding or weathering. Turner found that the underream
removed most of the doubt found with the straight shaft.
Zobel et al. [11] also directly compared grillages and straight
shafts. The grillage foundation did not give results as high as
had been hoped and the movements under uplift load were
IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1982
quite considerable compared with the straight shafted
foundation. The latter could be designed to provide suitable
uplift resistance, provided the shaft was of a suitable diameter
and depth. Some underreamed shafts were tried with reason-
able success. However, difficulty was found in the practical
achievement of the foundation.
Electricite de France carried out several series of tests to
investigate the behaviour of foundations undercut into undis-
turbed soil [12, 13]. Their normal practice had been to cut in
the bottom pad of the foundation some 100 mm; they then
investigated undercutting the next layer of the 'wedding cake'
and providing an undercut of 400 mm. The uplift load increased
by a factor of between 25 and 50%, whereas the movement
due to the uplift was reduced. Similarly, they investigated the
production of a bulb base on bored poles. The result was found
to be an improvement, but the anlysis was not completely
fair as the base was increased in diameter, but the depth of the
foundation was not reduced.
3.4 Comparison of foundation types
The practical results confirm the empirical rules laid down in
the German VDE specification [2]. From the point of view of
ultimate uplift load and also, incidentally, of minimisation of
movement, the foundation cast within formwork .is less
desirable than one cast against the virgin soil which is similarly
not so effective as one undercut into the undisturbed soil.
According to VDE 0210 a foundation 2.55 mm square and
set 3.3m deep would present resistances to uplift as follows,
in a stiff clay soil:
{a) in formwork, 841
(Z>)cast directly, lOOt
(c) undercut, 1191
Both the ERA and filectricite de France, respectively, indicate
a greater percentage improvement of the undercut over the
formed or the cast direct foundation, compared with the VDE
assessment. However, the latter appears to be of the correct
form and it has the advantage of being safe.
There seems to be agreement that the provision of an
undercut or bell at the base of an augered shaft will enhance
the behaviour of the foundation. However, many of the tests
were carried out with the bell as an addition to the straight
underreamed foundation and the results were thus foreseeably
better.
Trials were carried out several years ago in the UK, when
augered shafts were tested in clay soils in an attempt to
confirm that underreaming was an advantage. In round terms,
it was found that an increase in depth of a 900 mm diameter
straight shaft from 5.0 to 7.4 m was equivalent to the provision
of a bulb of 1.5 m diameter at the 5 m depth. There was no
obvious reduction in movement related to uplift loads for the
undercut shaft; in fact, in one test the movement was consider-
ably greater. No attempt was made to investigate the effect of
changes in the properties of the soil in the surface layers (i.e.
weathering, tension cracks, reduction in strength due to
seasonal moisture); but the UK practice is to ignore the top
0.75 m of ground to discount unexpected variations in the
soil properties.
There appears to have been no direct comparison by test of
normal shaped foundations and augered shafts. Logically, as
the complete surface area of an augered foundation is cast
against undisturbed soil, its behaviour should be better than
most normal foundations, perhaps approaching that of under-
cut foundations. It is possible, however, that the parallel
shaft, although initially it moves very little, may shear the
surrounding soil virtually in one stage; whereas the block
foundation moves more in its initial loading, but sideways
forces are generated from the block into the surrounding soil
and failure of the foundation is by progressive shear failure.
297
 There have been relatively few foundation tests carried out
compared with the number of foundations installed. Of these
tests, the results of only a small proportion are available gen-
erally and, consequently, very few engineers are cognisant of
the relative behaviour of different foundation types. There
have been reasonable testing regimes on any one particular
foundation type, but rarely have two or more foundation
types for the same conditions of service been tested and com-
pared. One difficulty in analysis of test results is the inhomo-
geneity of most ground and this has to be taken into account
in conjunction with the lack of complete information on
tests, since rarely are both full soil properties and full records
of test procedures and foundation behaviour listed for the
reader to analyse.
One factor of uplift foundation behaviour which is not
generally realised is the extent of the movement of many
foundations when subject to tensile forces. There is of course
no accepted limit on foundation movements; figures of 13 mm
have been quoted in the past, but it is acknowledged that the
allowable movement must be related to tower-base width and
to tower structural design, and so it is impossible to stipulate
an absolute maximum value. However, the tests carried out by
ERA [9] and by Zobel et al. [11] indicated that excessive
movement prior to the achievement of maximum uplift load
could be found with many foundations. The types of founda-
tions most prone to movement were grillages and pad or
pyramid footings. The movement tended to increase in weaker
soils but it was found that poor backfill compactation, even in
a good undisturbed soil, allowed unacceptable uplift movement.
3.5 Techniques involved in the construction of foundations
Construction techniques used for foundations can vary from
the most basic form to the epitome of sophistication. The tests
quoted previously indicated that much better resistance to up-
lift was obtained when foundations were undercut (or under-
reamed) in,to undisturbed ground.
The ne^t best foundation to an undercut is one which is
cast direct, and the technique for this is perhaps the simplest
possible; you dig a hole and throw in the concrete. The classical
UK foundation cast within its formwork requires more design
and construction skill to form the correct shape.
The undercut foundation (the use of which increases the
capability and reduces the movement of the footing) can,
however, only be constructed in ground which is basically
'good' and in which strong foundations should fairly easily
be constructed. There is no easy method in which undercutting
can be carried out mechanically, and, in fact, as the dimensions
of the basic hole are smaller, the work of the machine is often
more difficult than in larger excavations.
Care has to be taken over the control of the excavation size,
because variations could give rise to foundations which could
be cast below design strength, or, at the other extreme, could
be above strength but expensive.
Augered shafts can be underreamed with the correct tools
in a satisfactory soil type. Time is taken over changing the
auger heads, but small shafts do not have to be cleared by
hand, as do the larger diameter piles. There is always consider-
able doubt about the shape of the underream, the form of
which cannot readily be verified. Samples of underreamed
auger foundations which have been recovered, either following
tests or from foundations in service, have demonstrated this
difficulty of construction. There is little experience of actual
efficient mechanical underreaming of augered shafts for over-
head-line-tower foundations. Absolute information on actual
equipment and construction techniques, which have been
satisfactorily used, should be circulated through the industry
if use of the techniques is to expand.
298
4 Effects of variation in soil properties on the design
strength of foundations
Study of the literature shows that at the present time the only
variation in ground conditions which is normally expected to
occur is a rise of the water table to a level above the founda-
tion base. In this condition, as in normal civil engineering
practice, submerged densities of soil and concrete are used for
calculation, instead of the bulk densities normally considered.
In the empirical methods the use of submerged densities
will reduce the uplift resistance by 40% to 50%, while a similar
reduction has to be considered for the bearing capacity of fric-
tional soils.
When formulas based on soil mechanics are used to anlayse
foundation behaviour, the reduction in strength resulting from
consideration of submerged densities varies according to the
size of the apparent Cohesion term. If the latter is zero, the
strength will vary in proportion to the density, as is the case
with the frustum method; but if the cohesion is large and the
frictional component is small then a much smaller reduction
in strength is found.
In neither method so far has there been any consideration
of the variation in foundation capability arising from weakening
of the soil due to an increase in moisture content as opposed
to the effect of submergence, although at least one British
consultant's specification covers this aspect albeit in an advisory
way. Some specifications stipulate different included angles for
the frustum, depending on the condition of the soil at the time
of investigation, but these angles are not specified conserva-
tively small to take account of any possible changes. When
using formulas based on soil mechanics, account can be taken
of the reduction in cohesion with increase in moisture content.
(For clay soils the shear strength at the plastic limit can be
forty times that at the liquid limit.) If information is available
on the maximum moisture content likely to be found in the
soil related to the soil plasticity indices, then some assessment
of the shear strength can possibly be made. If fast undrained
triaxial tests are used for determining strength parameters,
then increases in moisture content can affect the readings
obtained for the angle of shearing resistance; but this factor
is not generally of great importance in the calculations.
4.1 Practical investigations into soil strength variation
Investigations are not normally taken to allow comparison of
the soil strength parameters at any one site over a period of
time. However, from two areas of the world results are available
of soil tests which were taken at different times from positions
which macroscopically could be considered the same. There is
obviously bound to be variation in the actual soil samples
investigated at different times, and, by very nature of the
inhomogeneity of soil, these changes in soil properties have to
be allowed for before consideration is made of changes arising
from seasonal effects.
Area 1 was subject to heavy rainfall over a fairly extended
period. This rainfall raised ground water level, generally wetted,
and thus weakened soil layers, and in fact the flora and fauna
of the area were modified by the change in climatic conditions.
Such changes had occurred previously at intermittent intervals,
but they were not part of an accepted annual variation.
Area 2 is in a country which has a regular rainy season,
followed by dry warm weather, during which water evaporates
or sinks into the ground. This annual behaviour is one which
required analysis to allow accurate design of foundations
which are set in the strata of soil subject to marked change
in properties.
In area 1, soil investigations involved in situ standard
penetration testing and removal of undisturbed samples, which
were subject to undrained triaxial compression testing in the
IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1982
 Table 1 : Results of soil investigations carried out during two seasons (area 1)

Position Season Depth to Moisture Apparent Angle of Bulk Shear Unified SPT Ultimate
free content cohesion shearing density strength soil blows bearing
water resistance classifi- per capacity
cation 300 mm from SPT

m % kN/m 2 degrees 10 3 kg/m 3 kN/m 2 kN/m 2

1 dry 3.0 5 15 21 1.66 24.6 SF 5 125
wet 3.0 18 8 23 1.73 19.0 SF 3 75
2 dry 3.0 6 15 25 1.67 26.7 ML 4 100
wet 3.0 12 0 30 1.77 15.3 SF 4 100
3 dry 3.0 7 18 29 1.63 41.0 SF 7 175
wet 3.0 12 5 27 1.74 27.4 SM 5 125
4 dry 3.0 5 10 25 1.63 21.4 SF 7 175
wet 3.0 19 5 28 1.87 19.9 SF 4 100
5 dry 1.5 24 25 22 1.98 39.2 ML 36 900
wet 1.0 22 12 29 1.91 29.2 SM 9 225
6 dry 3.0 10 15 25 1.77 27.4 SF 6 150
wet 0.5 28 20 18 1.88 25.9 ML 0 0
7 dry 3.0 9 10 22 1.54 27.0 SF 7 175
wet 0.5 20 13 25 1.79 25.2 SM 9 225
8 dry 3.0 28 35 30 1.93 51.8 CL 21 525
wet 3.0 27 25 9 1.91 24.5 ML 5 125
9 dry 3.0 29 30 16 1.94 38.4 ML 13 325
wet 0.5 34 20 3 1.98 21.0 ML 3 75
10 dry 2.3 25 63 24 1.91 75.8 ML 14 350
wet 1.4 22 0 28 1.82 14.0 ML 3 75
11 dry 2.3 23 40 29 1.85 65.0 ML 16 400
wet 1.4 24 15 27 1.87 32.8 ML 11 275

laboratory. From these tests, soil strength properties were
determined and the results are shown in Table 1. The shear
strength is estimated from the Coulomb equation and is
included in the Table to give an indication of stength variation.
Also shown is the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil,
assessed on the basis of the standard-penetrations test results.
It will be seen that, after wetting of the soil, the shear strength
and the bearing capacity is reduced by a factor varying from
5% to 80%.
An equally dramatic variation is shown in the strength
results found in area 2, where measurements were taken using
the Chance-Auger probe. In this investigation, readings were
taken at varying times after the cessation of the heavy rainfall
of the wet season.
Successive readings gave results indicating increasing bearing
capacities, and over a six month period the indications are that
the strength increased by a factor of between 2\ to 5 (Table 2).
In each case, if investigations were taken when the ground
was drier, the strength of the ground would be overestimated
and foundations constructed to the measured strength para-
meters would suffer a loss of strength as the ground weakened
in the wet conditions.
4.2 Assessment of foundation strength variation based on
changes in soil properties
Using the soil properties measured in area 1 and indicated in
Table 1, calculations have been made for foundations of
dimensions 1.2 m length, 0.6 m width and set to a depth of
2.4m. Four methods of design were used: (a) the empirical
frustum formula, using a 30° frustum half angle and a soil
bulk density either of 1.6 t/m 3 or of the actual measured bulk
value, taking account of submerged densities below the level
of the water table, (b) the Biarez and Barraud design method,
(c) the Cauzillo design method and (d) the Vanner design
method; using the properties as measured from the tests on un-
distrurbed samples. For (b), (c) and (d) submerged densities
were used where applicable.
The results of the calculations are shown in Table 3. It will
be seen that, even where there has not been reduction in
strength due to submergence (positions 1—4 and 8), the soil
mechanics analyses indicate quite considerable reductions in
uplift resistances due to weakening of the soil in the wet
conditions. This reduction, which is up to two thirds that of
the original uplift resistance, is not given by use of the frustum
formula.
For other locations where the water table has risen and will
give partial submergence, the calculations based on soil mech-
anics generally indicate greater reductions than those estimated
from the empirical formula. The two exceptions are where,
possibly due to inhomogeneity of the soil, the laboratory
tests gave slightly higher values of apparent cohesion in the
wet conditions compared with the dry.
The calculations show that foundation set in fine silty sands
may have, in wet conditions, an uplift resistance as low as 16%
of that expected in the dry. The reduction could have been
greater if the water table had risen nearer the ground surface
than the levels measured.
There are differences in the values of uplift resistance cal-
culated by the three soil-mechanics methods, that of Vanner
generally giving the lowest values. This would be expected for
foundations cast against formwork and with the failure surface
within the fill area. The three methods do, however, indicate, in
most cases, similar patterns of behaviour for the foundations,
as the soils become weakened due to increase in their percent-
age saturation.
From Table 2, using the results obtained in area 2 and
assuming that foundation uplift resistance varies in propor-
tion to bearing capacity, then reductions of strength of 60
to 80% will be found from wet to dry seasons.
4.3 Practical tests on foundations: variations depending
on dry or wet conditions
These were carried out on foundations installed in area 1.
Brief details are given in Appendix 10.2. Some foundations
Table 2 : Bearing capacity of soil estimated from Chance-Auger readings
(area 2)
Estimated soil Number of days after end of rains
bearing capacity 8 30 181
kN/m 2
Site 1 154 231 375
Site 2 75 — 375
Site 3 _ 160 375
Site 4 - 175 375

IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1982 299

 Table 3 : Analysis of uplift resistance for foundations set in ground indicated in Table 1

Position Season Submergence Calculated ultimate uplift resistance, kN

Correction Vanner
30° frustum Biarez and Cauzillo
3 Barraud design design
7 1.6 t/m 7 actual design method method
method

1 dry no 222 230 230 204 148

wet no 222 240 173 195 110
2 dry no 222 233 236 265 160
wet no 222 245 231 164 81
3 dry no 222 226 222 346 188
wet no 222 241 164 195 103
4 dry no 222 226 193 216 136
wet no 222 259 177 215 111
5 dry yes 210 256 261 274 215
wet yes 195 222 167 245 138
6 dry no 222 245 216 272 164
wet yes 169 173 186 204 159
7 dry no 222 216 172 189 125
wet yes 169 173 152 173 114
8 dry no 222 268 328 572 314
wet no 222 265 113 209 188
9 dry no 222 269 315 298 240
wet yes 169 193 84 133 137
10 dry no 222 265 471 677 471
wet yes 208 237 149 117 76
11 dry no 222 257 344 582 341
wet yes 208 237 191 257 109

were tested in the intial (dry) conditions and some were tested
after the period of extended rainfall. The foundations were of
the size and depth for which the trial calculations were given
in Table 3. The actual soil properties found at the test sites are
shown in Table 4. Table 5 lists the test results obtained and
these values are compared with design values based on the
frustum formula, using nominal and actual bulk densities
and on the soil mechanics' formulas proposed by Biarez and
Barraud [4] and Vanner [7].
The soil conditions at sites B and C are similar, except for
the rise in water table at site C to a level half way up the
foundation. The reduction in strength of the foundation at
site C was considerably more than would be assessed from the
frustum formula, and for that matter from the soil mechanics'
formulas. The error in the empirical assessment obviously
comes from the assumption of submerged densities in the
lower half of the frustum; this only affects a small percentage
of the frustum volume. From the point of view of foundation
strength, it is the soil surrounding the foundation which has
most effect. This fact must also explain, to some extent, why
the soil mechanics' theories fail to explain accurately the
behaviour during submergence; as these theories also tend to
integrate soil strength from the base of the foundation up to
ground level.
The uplift capacities of the foundations in the fine sands
showed marked reductions when the soil moisture content
increased (compare sites D, E and F with A). In these weaker
soils the actual ultimate uplift resistances of the foundations
varied between 40 and 56% of the values assessed from the
frustum formula, using the nominal bulk density. As might be
expected, the soil mechanics analyses indicated more accurately
the behaviour of the foundations, although both overesti-
mated the strength at position C and underestimated that at
position D. Such variations are to be expected, because the

Table 4: Results of soil investigations carried out at test sites

Position Depth to Moisture Apparent Angle of Bulk Unified

free water content cohesion shearing density soil
resistance description
m % kN/m 2 degrees 10 3 kg/m 3
3.0 10 0 33 1.85 SF
3.0 28 46 11 1.91 Ml
1.2 28 45 16 1.99 Ml
1.4 13 0 14 1.83 SM
2.1 13 10 26 1.83 SM
1.4 20 5 18 1.94 SM

Table 5: Comparison of ultimate uplift values found from test and from calculations

Position Test ultimate Calculated ultimate uplift values, kN

uplift value, kN
30 frustum formula Biarez Vanner
design method design method
7 1.6 t / m 3 7 actual
230 222 257 166 160
230 222 265 197 234
123 202 245 368 183
83 208 232 62 37
124 220 250 193 135
87 208 247 151 83

300 IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1982

calculations are based on the results of single tests on soil
properties, even though it was known that there was quite
considerable inhomogeneity of the soil structure.
The test results vary generally in accordance with the manner
predicted from soil mechanics analysis, and it is thus reason-
able to conclude that consideration of the latter approach
should be maintained when estimating foundation behaviour.
On this basis, the variations of foundation strength given in
Table 3 are quite possible; and, if these occurred in practice,
then, on average, the factor of safety on a foundation would
be reduced from, say, 2.5 to 1.5 or from 1.5 to 0.9. Such a
reduction occurred for the foundation tested at position E,
after account has been taken of the slight rise in the water
table, only 0.3 m. Foundations at positions D and F showed
even greater reductions.
5 Effect of variable loads on uplift foundations
Historically, the vast amount of tests on foundations have
consisted, effectively, of applying static loading conditions.
This practice obviously evolved from the first simple tests on
site and the desire to keep the testing procedures as straight-
forward as possible.
The loads are generally applied to the foundation from a
jack through a beam. Except for very few cases, originally
the applied load was estimated by the hydraulic pressure
reading on the jack. Electric load cells were employed addi-
tionally by a few research organisations; but errors in readings
due to faulty electronic equipment could easily be suffered if
the design engineer had not perfected his measuring equipment.
Thus, it can be seen that the test equipment available was
not suitable for application of sophisticated loading regimes.
The load was generally increased in increments which were
held for periods of 5 to 15min, thus simulating, as far as
possible, reasonable rapid loading, yet still allowing the
jacking to be carried out and measurements to be taken.
Frequently, the test procedure would include one or more
cycles between zero and working load with finally an increase
to failure. A few tests were carried out much more slowly, in
an attempt to approach the more permanent loading expected
from deviation or termination towers.
Recent advances in technology have allowed the application
and monitoring of rapidly varying loads, and two recent test
programmes have been carried out in Italy and France to
investigate the behaviour of foundations subject to them. The
findings of both teams are similar; they concluded that analysis
of the results of static loading tests could not be extended to
the behaviour of those foundations under varying loads.
Cauzillo and Rendina [14] investigated two differing types
of varying load: the transient load which is due to dynamic
effects on the line (conductor breakage, ice shedding, etc.)
and the fluctuating load due to wind on the line. They dis-
covered that the fluctuating wind loads were transferred to the
foundations through the tower, effectively unaltered; whereas
the transient longitudinal loads were filtered by the tower
and, as a result, the foundations were only affected by the
residual load. This effect means that, because of the relative
frequency responses of the tower and the foundation, the
latter can resist a load applied suddenly and for a short dura-
tion better than the same load applied for a long time; the
foundation design need be only for the semipermanent out-of-
balance load, not for the dynamic shock load. The fluctuating
wind load, however, tended to produce a progressive deteriora-
tion of foundations in cohesive soil, but not in frictional soil.
Cochard [15] investigated only fluctuating loads, but his
investigations included compression-compression, tension-
tension and compression-tension cycles, and it was the last
which proved destructive to straight-shafted foundations in
IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1982
particular. The two former regimes tended to increase the
ultimate resistance of the shafted foundations. With the
compression-tension system, shafts could be pulled up with
cyclic loads, the modulus of which was only some 40% of the
ultimate static uplift resistance of the shaft in cohesionless
soils. In cohesive soils, accelerated uplift of a shaft or of a
flat plate occurs only when the tensile portion of the cyclic
load exceeds about 80% of the static uplift resistance. Flat
plates behaved as if statically loaded in frictional soils. It was
pointed out that a pad and chimney foundation could be con-
sidered intermediate between the shaft and the plate, and it
would thus be less prone to degradation by a fluctuating load
than a straight shaft.
It is known that certain saturated materials, when subjected
to vibration, can exhibit the phenomenom of liquefaction-;
this problem is known to engineers attempting to provide
foundation for rotating machinery.
The detailed results indicate that Cochard obtained con-
siderable weakening of a pile in frictional material, while
Cauzillo and Rendina did not find foundations in sand were
sensibly weakened. However, the joint conclusions of both
sets of authors was that, until more was known of foundation
behaviour, the maxima of known fluctuating loads applied to
foundations should be restricted to 75% of static uplift for
pads and chimneys, and to 60% of static uplift for straight
shafts.
It is acknowledged that certain foundation failures may be
inexplicable. There are in total, however, not many failures,
and thus very few failures could be attributed to fluctuating
loads. The tests were carried out with fluctuations in load
which were large in scale; in recent practice, normal wind loads
would only be expected to reach 40% of the ultimate uplift
load and the foundation behaviour would still be staisfactory.
It is obvious that more investigation needs to be carried out
into the behaviour of foundations when varying loads are
applied; at the same time, it will be necessary to study what
loads can reasonably be expected to be applied to the
foundations.
6 Proposals for future work
This paper has attempted to study two main factors related to
foundation uplift behaviour: foundation type (which can per-
haps be distinguished by shape and by construction technique)
and seasonal variation in soil-strength properties. In both
subjects, only a small amount of investigation has been carried
out; but the indications are that, in each case, certain factors
can reduce the capability of foundations more than perhaps
was realised.
There appears incontrovertible evidence that undercut
foundations give the best uplift behaviour, followed fairly
closely by foundations cast directly against undisturbed ground.
There is a need for investigation into the direct comparison of
the equivalent shaft with pad and chimney foundations,
where the latter are cast directly or undercut.
Following studies of straight-shaft foundations the investi-
gations should extend to underreamed shafts, again with an
attempt to produce the equivalent foundation. It is believed
that much of the experimental effort involved with the 'belled'
shafts will be related to refining the construction techniques.
It is obvious that further investigations should take place
on foundations subjected to variable loads. The range of the
tests needs to be extended to cover more foundation types and
a greater range of applied loads. The tests carried out to date
suggest that straight-shaft foundations are not satisfactory in
behaviour, and, in view of their excellent showing under static
loading conditions, more work should be carried out on this
aspect, with an extension into the behaviour of the belled shaft.
301
 Seasonal variation of soil moisture content, and thus of soil 8 Acknowledgements
strength, can have a critical effect on foundation behaviour.
The author thanks the General Manager of the Power Trans-
Further consideration needs to be given to this problem, since
mission Division, Balfour Beatty Power Construction Limited
although the loss of strength due to weakening of the soil in
and the Directors of Balfour Beatty Limited for permission
itself can be of major importance, it will be realised that, when
to publish this paper.
it is added to the weakening reported in the tests on variable
loads, the result can be critical.
It would be satisfactory if site investigation could always be
carried out when the ground conditions were weakest. However, 1
1. /
for areas where there is a regular rainy season, it is not always I 1 /
\ 1 /
easy or convenient to mobilise the site investigation team at \ 1
1 /
the required time. Areas which have irregular periods of heavy \ ' 4
rain can obviously be correctly investigated only if the rain has \
fortuitously fallen just prior to mobilisation. \
It is proposed that studies can be made which should allow \ /
\ /
assessment of the likely problems. These studies will have to be
/
partly based on laboratory tests complemented by field investi-
gation. It is possible that information is already available, but
that it needs to be collected and correlated.
The basic problem is to obtain details of the variation of
values of apparent cohesion c and angle of shearing resistance \ I
0; as obtained from fast undrained triaxial tests, related to
values of percentage saturation or air content for soils of
different description (say by unified or Casogrande systems).
To complement this information, it would be necessary to \l
_ <* I frictional)
have details of recorded percentage saturations for different ' " v Vsoils }
soil types taken during wet and dry seasons, at various loca- ora=
t clays )
tions in the world.
Such a combination of facts would allow assessment of the (i) (ii)
probable percentage variation in foundation strength over
normal seasons. Where a sudden change in climatic conditions
occurs, then, there is no easy answer;however, it is recommened
that, when very fine sands and silty soils are encountered in
areas where rains might occur, the design strengths of the soil A
are assumed to be reduced from those measured by some
percentage. The investigations quoted in this paper suggest a
mean value of reduction of 20 to 30%.

7 Conclusions

The uplift behaviour of a foundation is dependent, among

other things, on its shape and on the techniques used in its
construction.
For optimum results the greatest use should be made of the
properties of undisturbed soil, preferably by undercutting the
foundation into it, or by casting the concrete directly against it.
One of the simplest foundation types that satisfactorily
follows the above requirements is the straight, augered or
drilled, shaft. Static tests have indicated an excellent perform-
ance, but recent dynamic loading tests have suggested that
the straight-shaft foundation is at a disadvantage.
Although tests have indicated that underreamed shaft
foundations should perhaps give the best performance of all,
there appears to be uncertainty over the construction tech-
niques which can be satisfactorily used.
Evidence is presented of the variation in soil-strength
properties which can be found over the seasons. Tests carried
out on foundations showed that considerable loss of uplift
strength can occur just with a wetter soil, before any weakening
is caused by submergence.
Formulas used at the present time for designing founda-
tions are generally empirical and there is no facility in them to
cater for the weakening of soil strength in this manner.
Investigations into the seasonal variation of soil strength,
moisture content and the comparative behaviour of founda-
tions is required so that this factor can be introduced into the
empirical formulas.
(ii)
Fig. 1 Synoptic table of Biarez and Barraud design method
a Pile foundations in all soil types
b Shallow-pad foundations:
(i) in frictional soils and in sandy clays, (ii) in saturated clays
c Deep-pad foundations:
(i) in frictional soils and in sandy clays, (ii) in saturated clays
9 References
1 'Design of foundations for steel towers for overhead transmission
lines at 132kV and higher voltages'. ESI Standard 43-4,1972
2 'Regulations for the construction of overhead power lines above
1 kV. German VDE Specification 0210/5.69, 1969
3 KILLER, J.: 'Economical foundations for overhead line towers'.
Proceedings of the third international conference on soil mechanics
and foundation engineering, 1953, 3, pp. 265-276
4 BIAREZ, J., and BARRAUD, Y.: The use of soil mechanics
methods for adapting tower foundations to soil conditions'. CIGRE
paper 22-06, 1968
5 CAUZILLO, B.A.: 'Metodo di calcolo del carico limite per fonda-
zioni sollecitate a trazione', L'Energia Elettrica, 1973, 50, pp. 3-12
6 VANNER, M.J.: 'Improvements in the design and construction of
pyramid-type foundations for 400 kV overhead line towers'. IEE
Conf. Publ. 44, 1968, pp. 88-92
7 VANNER, M.J.: 'Strength tests on overhead line tower foundations
-The effect of variation of depth of burial'. ERA Report 5202,
1967
8 'Transmission structures'. Design standard 10, Chap. 2, US Bureau
of Reclamation, 1951

302 IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1982

 9 PARR, R.G., and VANNER, M.J.: 'Strength tests on overhead line
tower foundations - Interim report'. ERA Report 0/T28,1962
10 TURNER, E.A.: 'Uplift resistance of transmission tower founda-
tions',/. Pwr. Divn. Proc. ASCE, 1962, 88, pp. 17-33
11 ZOBEL, E.S., WOLFE, R.S., and EVANS, J.T.: 'Guy Anchor and
foundation test results and evaluation for Montana Colstrip Project'.
IEEE PES winter meeting, paper A76 041-4, 1976
12 MARTIN, D.: 'Influence du mode de realisation des foundations sur
leur tenue a l'arrachement'. CIGRE SC22 WG07 working document,
1971
13 MARTIN, D.: 'Amelioration de la resistance a Farrachement des
foundations de pylones'. CIGRE SC22 WG07 working document,
1974
14 CAUZILLO, B.A., and RENDINA, R.: 'Dynamic behaviour of over-
head line foundations'. CIGRE paper 22-07,1980
15 COCHARD, A.: 'Behaviour of tower foundations under variable
loads'. IEE Conf. Publ. 176, 1979, pp; 107-111
10 Appendixes
10.1 Recent soil mechanics theories related to uplift
resistance of foundations
It is not possible, in this paper, to present a precis of previously
published design theories, and readers are advised to study the
original papers, quoted as references. It is believed, however,
that the following simple summary of the theories may aid
understanding of their concepts.
10.1.1 Method proposed by Biarez and Barraud [4]: This
theory was developed from an extensive model and from some
full-scale studies of foundation behaviour, followed up by the
application of theoretical soil mechanics and by checking of
the proposed formulas against 129 test results reported to
CIGRfi. Accuracies were claimed to be often better than
± 20%, but generally better than ± 40%.
Study of the models indicated that piles and relatively
shallow pads lifted up a truncated cone of soil connected to
the foundation concrete. The relatively deep pad foundations
failed owing to local shear through the soil in the neighbour-
hood of the pad.
The simplified system analysed in the theory is closely
related to the failure surfaces seen in the model tests. A
truncated cone rises from the base of the foundation (either
the shallow pad or the pile shaft). The angle from the vertical
of the failure surface depends on the foundation and soil type
(Fig. 1). The deep pad foundation analysis is a combination
of pad and pile behaviour for clay soils, or a combination of
local shear on the pad 'and pile behaviour on the chimney in

1 .0

0-5

0 1 2 3
D/B

0.5

2 3
D /B
Q = S, [ C M £ * y DM if • / ) • q M q ] • P . P s

Fig. 2 Values of constants for shallow pad in sandy clay soils (after
Biarez and Barraud) Fig. 3 Synoptic table of Cauzillo design method

IEE PROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1982 303

sandy clays and frictional soils. The division between shallow
and deep pads is at a ratio D/B varying from 3 up to 6, or
greater, depending on foundation shape and soil type.
Fig. 2 gives an indication of the change in constants
MC^MQ or My) and MQ, with D/B and 0 for a shallow pad
foundation in sandy clay soils. Similar, more detailed graphs
are given in the original paper [4] to cover all the values of
constants for alternate foundation types in different soils.
The formula was used by Electricite de France for checking
some foundations, and it has been used for design on at least
one South American specification.
10.1.2 Method proposed by Cauzillo [5]: The theory again
was based on observation of tests on models, and the applica-
tion of soil mechanics to a simplified failure system. The
formulas were then applied to check the results of full-scale
foundation tests, including, finally, the 129 CIGRfi results.
The failure surface is assumed to be a logarithmic spiral, the

K0
10 10

=30

20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
a _ b cos <t> u ot
t =D —— K0
s m CL

=30

= 30

20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
a OL

Fig. 4 Values of constants for design formula (after Cauzillo)

HODR rOUXDITIONS ILLUSTMTIHG TTNCM. FIILURES

Fig. 6 Methods of soil failure during the uplift of foundations (after

Vanner)
a The major complex frustum D/B < 1.6
b Intermediate failure 1.6 < D/B < 2.6

F = n(B + 0.3) (0.3C + 0.18 y tan 30/4)

Fig. 5 Model foundations showing typical failure + nB !(£> - 0 . 6 ) C ++ jtan

{(D—0.6)C ^-tan (p(D
2
0(£>5 -0.36)1
a Model undercut foundations
b Model foundations cast in excavations c Local failure D/B > 2.6

304 IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1982

critical depth being that at which a tangent to the spiral is
horizontal. The shape of the foundation, that is the size and
slope of the pad or pyramid extending from the column, is
another important factor in the equations (Fig. 3). Some of
the constants given in the original paper are shown in Fig. 4.
It is claimed that use of the Cauzillo formula has given
results in closer agreement with full-scale tests than other
formulas, but its accuracies appear to be similar to those of the
Biarez and Barraud formula. Its use has, so far, it is believed,
been restricted to Italy.
10.1.3 Method proposed by Vanner [7]: The theory was
based on the results of an extended series of tests on full-
scale foundations. The British practice is to cast foundations
within formwork and to backfill soil around and above the
foundations. These investigations, and those preceding them
(Parr and Vanner [9]) are the only investigations which
consider, in detail, the effect of the backfill on the uplift
behaviour of a foundation. Subsequently, model foundations
were installed in sand and photographs taken of the failure
planes (Fig. 5). Fig. Sa shows foundations undercut into un-
disturbed ground and the failure lines rising as frustra; Fig. 5b
shows foundations set in excavations and the failure planes
rising along the walls of the excavation. The failure mechanisms
found in the full-scale tests were similar to the models for
the foundations in excavations; but scale effects meant that
full frusta failure planes were not feasible with undercut
foundations unless the foundation was very close to the
ground surface.
The design theory was based on the integration of the
Coulomb equation for shear strength over the cylindrical
surface rising from the base of the foundation.
The deep foundations (D/B > 2.6) experienced local
failure rather than shear to the surface. The localised failure
areas were found when the deep full-scale foundations were
excavated, and a modification to the formula was introduced
for the deep footing. Fig. 6 indicates the varieties of failure
found and the type of formula used to analyse them. The
formula was only applicable to foundations cast within the
IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 6, NOVEMBER 1982
excavation. It has been used only infrequently for checking
foundation behaviour.
10.2 Foundation tests carried out in area 1
Full-scale tests were carried out to prove the foundation
designs in the ground conditions encountered on site. Sub-
sequent to the period of extended rainfall, further tests were
carried out to reconfirm the foundation capability. The tests
were carried out with the equipment available on site, and
without the advantage of full-scale research facilities.
It is believed that it is the trends found from the series of
tests which are of major importance. There is not the space
available in this paper to give full details of all the test pro-
cedures or of the test findings. The following outline informa-
tion may be of interest to readers:
The ground condition at the sites (Table 4) was predomi-
nantly silty sand, occasionally being more silty (sandy silt).
These soil types are, by their nature, quite variable in behaviour;
a slight change in the silt content can affect quite considerably
the permeability of the soil and its apparent behaviour. The
differences in values of apparent cohesion and of angle of
shearing resistance are probably due to this alteration in
permeability. The level of the water table varied from below
foundation depth to quite a distance above it.
The foundation were blocks 1.2 m long, 0.6 m wide, set at a
depth of 2.4m. They were pulled upwards by means of a
bond, into which a previously calibrated dynamometer was
introduced. The movement of the blocks was checked using
a scale rigidly attached to the upper part of the foundation
and measured using the cross wires on a theodolite.
Loads were applied in approximately 20% increments of
the ultimate load. Each increment was held steady for at least
5 min though the working load was maintained for 15min.
Uplift measurements were taken at the beginning and at the
end of each increment of loading.
It was not possible to obtain any information about the
mechanisms of failure which had occurred during testing.
Neither surface nor subterranean markers were installed to
indicate soil heave or lateral movement.
305