Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A feasibility study on construction methods of high voltage transmission towers’ foundations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Civil engineering projects deal with different risks over their life-cycle. Generally, risk sources are categorized into three types of cost, time, and project quality. The Modified Advanced Programmatic Risk Analysis Model (MAPRAM) is one of the leading approaches in this field that can assess the risks of the project on its whole life cycle. Electricity transmission lines have always been one of the most costly and time-consuming infrastructure projects. The costs of these projects play a significant role in a country's development budget. Given the considerable time and cost of constructing the foundations for power transmission towers, providing an economical design will significantly help in reducing duration and budget of these projects. In this study, using MAPRAM, first, different types of foundations of power transmission lines were studied; then the optimal foundations were introduced for a specific place as a case study, shaping a general framework to appoint the optimal foundation for power transmission lines in different areas. The foundations studied in this study included: pad & chimney foundation, auger foundation, steel grillage foundation, concrete piles, and helical piles. Initially, different types of foundations were designed, and then, the costs of each foundation in a whole life-cycle were estimated. Next, the risks and probability of their occurrence were identified for each type of foundation. Finally, the appropriate foundation was determined for the studied soil samples by performing an optimization process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Catchpole P (2014) Structural Engineering of Transmission Lines. ICE Publishing

  2. Kalaga S, Yenumula P (2016) Design of electrical transmission lines: structures and foundations. CRC Press

  3. Zeynalian M, Khorasgani MZ. Structural performance of concrete poles used in electric power distribution network. Arch Civ Mech Eng. 2018;18:863–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Halpin DW, Lucko G, Senior BA (2017) Construction management. John Wiley & Sons.

  5. Hendrickson C, Au T (2000) Project management for construction: fundamental concepts for owners, Engineers, Architects and Builders, Prentice Hall, Pitsburgh

  6. Kerzner H (2017) Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons

  7. Szymański P. Risk management in construction projects. Proc Eng. 2017;208:174–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dziadosz A, Rejment M. Risk analysis in construction project-chosen methods. Proc Eng. 2015;122:258–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Thomopoulos NT (2013) Generating continuous random variates, In: Essentials of Monte Carlo Simulation: Springer, pp 27–44.

  10. Allahi F, Cassettari L, Mosca M (2017) Stochastic risk analysis and cost contingency allocation approach for construction projects applying Monte Carlo simulation. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, vol. 1.

  11. Baig MMHA, Prasanthi SG (2013) Failure modes and effect analysis of a mechanical assembly by Using Mil-Std 1629a Method," the moon 13(13).

  12. Willmer G Time and cost risk analysis, Computers & Structures 41(6):1149–1155, 1991/01 1991.

  13. Cooper KG (1994) The $2,000 h: How managers influence project performance through the rework cycle, Project Management Institute.

  14. Mulholland B, Christian J. Risk assessment in construction schedules. J Construction Eng Manag. 1999;125(1):8–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mak S, Picken D. Using risk analysis to determine construction project contingencies. J Construction Eng Manag. 2000;126(2):130–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Öztaş A, Ökmen Ö. Judgmental risk analysis process development in construction projects. Build Environ. 2005;40(9):1244–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dillon RL, Pate-Cornell ME. APRAM: an advanced programmatic risk analysis method. Int J Technol Policy Manage. 2001;1(1):47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dillon RL, Paté-Cornell ME, Guikema SD. Programmatic risk analysis for critical engineering systems under tight resource constraints. Oper Res. 2003;51(3):354–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Imbeah W, Guikema S. Managing construction projects using the advanced programmatic risk analysis and management model. J Construction Eng Manag. 2009;135(8):772–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zeynalian M, Trigunarsyah B, Ronagh HR. Modification of advanced programmatic risk analysis and management model for the whole project life cycle’s risks. J Construction Eng Manag. 2013;139(1):51–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gamble KB, Lightsey EG. Decision analysis tool for small satellite risk management. J Spacecraft Rockets. 2016;53(3):420–32.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zeynalian M, Dehaghi IK. Choice of optimum combination of construction machinery using modified advanced programmatic risk analysis and management model. Scientia Iranica. 2018;25(3):1015–24.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ali AA, Faruq I, Ahmad A, Gandu Y. Exploring the awareness of advanced programmatic risk analysis and management model in managing construction projects in Nigeria. African J Earth Environ Sci. 2020;2(1):465–75.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bayliss CR, Bayliss C, Hardy B (2012) Transmission and distribution electrical engineering. Elsevier.

  25. Mohajerani A, Bosnjak D, Bromwich D. Analysis and design methods of screw piles: a review. Soils Found. 2016;56(1):115–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Perko HA (2009) Helical piles: a practical guide to design and installation. John Wiley & Sons

  27. A. Services, "AMS—Victorian Electricity Transmission Network- Risk Management (PUBLIC VERSION) " in "AMS 10–22 " 2015, Available: https://www.aer.gov.au/system/files/AusNet%20Services%20-%20AMS%2010-22%20-%20Risk%20Management%20-%20Public%20-%20October%202015.pdf.

  28. SCT. (2020). Engineering Services. http://sherantech.com/service.php

  29. ASCE 7-16 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, 2016.

  30. ASTM E917 - 05 - Standard practice for measuring life-cycle costs of buildings and building systems, 2005.

  31. IR2800—Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, 2015.

  32. Dunston PS, Williamson CE. Incorporating maintainability in constructability review process. J Manag Eng. 1999;15(5):56–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Griffin J (2003) Life cycle cost analysis: a decision aid, in Life cycle costing for construction: Routledge, pp 147–158.

  34. Paté-Cornell ME. Fault trees vs. event trees in reliability analysis. Risk Anal. 1984;4(3):177–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Guikema SD, Paté-Cornell ME. Component choice for managing risk in engineered systems with generalized risk/cost functions. Reliability Eng System Saf. 2002;78(3):227–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wolfram S (1999) The MATHEMATICA® book, version 4. Cambridge university press

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial assistance obtained from the Hormozgan Regional Electricity Company (HREC) to conduct this research.

Funding

This study was funded by Hormozgan Regional Electricity Company (HREC) (grant number 44526).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

    Iman Mozakka, Mehran Zeynalian & Mahmoud Hashemi

Authors
  1. Iman Mozakka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehran Zeynalian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mahmoud Hashemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehran Zeynalian.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest applicable to this research study.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mozakka, I., Zeynalian, M. & Hashemi, M. A feasibility study on construction methods of high voltage transmission towers’ foundations. Archiv.Civ.Mech.Eng 21, 41 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-021-00197-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-021-00197-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation