OLE Mast Foundation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/335663599
The design of railway overhead line equipment (OLE) mast foundations
Article in Geotechnical Engineering · September 2019

DOI: 10.1680/jgeen.18.00242
CITATION READS
1 2,143
3 authors, including:
William Powrie David Richards

University of Southampton University of Southampton
373 PUBLICATIONS 5,168 CITATIONS 110 PUBLICATIONS 758 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Rail Overhead Line Equipment foundation design View project
Civil engineering education View project
All content following this page was uploaded by David Richards on 22 July 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cite this article Research Article Keywords: codes of practice & stan-
Powrie W, Richards DJ and Mootoosamy VKS Paper 1800242 dards/piles & piling/railway systems
The design of railway overhead line equipment mast foundations. Received 03/12/2018;
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering, Accepted 30/08/2019
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.18.00242
Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY 4.0 license.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Geotechnical Engineering
The design of railway overhead line

equipment mast foundations
William Powrie FREng Vaneshen K. S. Mootoosamy BEng (Hons), MSc, GMICE, MBCS
Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, School of Engineering, IP Programme Engineering Manager B&C, Network Rail, UK
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton,
Southampton, UK
David J. Richards BEng, MSt, PhD, CEng, MICE
Professor of Ground Engineering, School of Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton,
Southampton, UK (corresponding author: djr@soton.ac.uk)
Railway electrification offers significant benefits in terms of decarbonisation at the point of use and reduced traction
costs. However, to realise these benefits, the fixed infrastructure must be provided at an affordable cost. Recent
schemes in the UK have seen the cost of railway electrification soar: one of a number of reasons for this has been the
substantial increase in mast foundation pile lengths compared with historic practice. The paper explores this through
a comparative review of traditional and modern pile design methods. In addressing the ultimate limit state, the
various approaches are shown to give broadly consistent results in terms of pile length. However, increased pile
lengths will be calculated if three-dimensional effects are not allowed for in limit equilibrium (ultimate limit state)
calculations, or if a serviceability limit state calculation is carried out using unrealistically low soil stiffness. The results
of the comparative analyses should give designers the confidence to use the traditional empirical approach, or a limit
equilibrium calculation without the need for an explicit serviceability limit state check (as permitted by Eurocode 7)
using potentially inappropriate soil stiffness parameters.
Notation Nq bearing capacity factor

a the smaller of the International Union of Railways - Nr ORE total vertical load on foundation
Office for Research & Experiments (ORE) dimensions, pu limiting lateral load per unit pile depth
e and b T ORE equivalent lateral load (daN)
b ORE dimension of the foundation block viewed on plan u pore water pressure
(perpendicular to overturning force) W weight of cantilever boom
cu undrained shear strength WF weight of foundation
D effective foundation length (Figure 3) WM weight of mast
d pile diameter w weight of cantilever boom and overhead line equipment
e height of action of lateral load above effective top of acting at centroid (Figure 2)
foundation (Figure 4, limit equilibrium analyses (LEA)) x eccentricity from centroid of foundation
e ORE dimension of the foundation viewed on plan y height above ground level that horizontal force is acting
(parallel to overturning force) z depth
H horizontal force (Figure 2) zp depth from effective top of foundation to pivot point
H ORE height above top of foundation at which equivalent β embankment slope angle
lateral load is applied γ soil unit weight
He equivalent lateral load (Figure 4, LEA) γ* effective soil unit weight
h′ ORE ineffective depth γw unit weight of water
h ORE total embedded depth Δ ORE specific weight of the soil (kg/m3)
i distance from the track to the foundation δ soil/pile friction angle
K ORE terrain factor θ rotation in principal stress direction
Ko in situ pressure coefficient σh′ horizontal effective stress
Kp passive pressure coefficient ϕ′ angle of shearing resistance
L width of the foundation
l total embedded depth of foundation
MB ORE moment limit at ground level 1. Introduction
MGL cross-track moment at ground level Railway electrification offers benefits for both the environment
Mult ORE ultimate moment of resistance at ground (zero carbon dioxide (CO2) and particulate emissions at the
level (daNm) point of use) and traction operation (reduced complexity and
(Mr)p uncorrected moment limit (ORE) cost), but requires investment in fixed infrastructure. If this
1
Downloaded by [ University Of Southampton] on [22/07/20]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
Geotechnical Engineering The design of railway overhead line
Powrie, Richards and Mootoosamy
can be provided economically, the life-cycle benefits of electri- While all of these changes were individually well intentioned,
fication should outweigh the costs, especially on an intensively aiming variously to
used railway. However, recent experience with the UK Great
Western mainline electrification project (GWEP) has not been & give a design framework clearly founded on modern soil
encouraging, with projected costs rising from £900 million in mechanics principles and unequivocally compliant with
2013 to £2·8 billion in 2016 (NAO, 2016). Costs of this mag- Eurocodes
nitude make the economic argument for electrification chal- & minimise the number of track possessions needed for
lenging, but in the case of GWEP, political and contractual installation
commitments (particularly to a new fleet of electric trains) & generally de-risk the installation process
had already been made. The specification of the trains was & reduce the potential for failure in service, and the
changed from electric-only to bi-mode (with diesel engines associated disruption
capable of powering the trains for main line running) when it
became clear that electrification would be delayed – possibly their combined effect on the credibility and affordability
indefinitely on parts of the route (e.g. Bristol Temple Meads of the UK electrification programme has been catastrophic
and west of Cardiff). (e.g. curtailment of GWEP at Cardiff, and cancellation of the
Midland Main Line electrification scheme). A common thread
The design and installation of the overhead line masts, and has been a loss of awareness and/or confidence in the knowl-
in particular their foundations, seems to have been a key factor edge gained through previous experience, particularly in the
in the GWEP cost over-run (RIA, 2019). A high-output design of OLE mast foundations.
piling system (HOPS) factory train was specified and built
on the basis of previous experience with UK main line electri- This paper
fication, which suggested a maximum pile length of 5·5 m.
Unfortunately, the simultaneous development of a revised & summarises the traditional and revised approaches to
approach to pile foundation design (Krechowiecki-Shaw and OLE pile foundation design
Alobaidi, 2015) led to an apparently significant increase in & discusses their philosophical differences
design foundation depths. The development of both the HOPS & compares the results of calculations for OLE structural
and the revised foundation design process occurred in advance and foundation loads typical of the GWEP ‘Series 1’
of the specification of the overhead line equipment (OLE) designs
itself. In the event, the more massive ‘Series 1’ superstructure & discusses the implications of the foundation
added to the problem by increasing the loads (compared with design approach adopted for future railway over-line
previous norms) that the foundations were required to carry. electrification.
6·00
5·50
1·12
0·50
Drop tube Catenary 2
Catenary 1 1·38
10·50 Contact 1 Contact 2
7·63 0·23 0·23

6·00
4·70
Rail level
0·50 Foundation level
2·80 1·435 1·965

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Standard ‘Series 1’ TTC OLE support structure: (a) line drawing (dimensions in m); (b) photograph
2
2. Background & the weight of the cantilever boom and the OLE it supports
This section summarises the loads associated with the GWEP (plus snow/ice loading as appropriate), w, acting downward
OLE masts, and the fundamental basis and key attributes of at an eccentricity x from the centroid of the foundation
the various methods for calculating foundation pile length. & a horizontal load, H, representing cross-track wind and
potentially an in-plane component of wire tension on
2.1 Loads applied to OLE mast foundations curved track, acting at a height y above ground level.
Three standard types of new ‘Series 1’ cantilever OLE support
structure were developed; the single-track cantilever (STC), At the top of the foundation (assumed here to be at ground
the twin-track (also referred to as two-track) cantilever (TTC) level), the generalised forces are statically equivalent to
and the extra-large TTC (XL-TTC). The regular TTC,
designed to support electrification equipment over two adja- & a vertical force (WM + WF + w)
cent tracks, is shown in Figures 1(a) and 1(b). & a horizontal force, H
& a moment of either (Hy +wx) towards the track, or
The principal loads on an OLE mast foundation are (Hy − wx) away from the track, depending on the net
direction of H.
& the weight of the mast, WM, and of the foundation itself,
WF, acting vertically downward through the centroid of The key design load for an OLE foundation is the cross-track
the foundation moment at ground level, MGL = (Hy + wx) towards the track
or MGL = (Hy − wx) away from the track. The larger
moment, with H acting towards the track and increasing the
WM
moment due to w – which may or may not be the worst case
depending on the slope of the terrain – is shown in Figure 2.
This paper focuses on MGL; it does not address the vertical
capacity check that would also need to be carried out for design
x according to standard geotechnical engineering principles.
w
H For simplicity, it is assumed that there is no upstand to the
foundation and, if the pile is installed in an embankment,
the downslope commences at the side of the pile further
y from the track, so there is no loss of embedment. The total
–MGL MGL embedded length of the foundation is l metres, of which the
h'
Ground level uppermost h′ metres may be considered to be ineffective,
owing, for example, to disturbance during pile installation.
Ineffective depth
l The most onerous characteristic loads, expressed as moment at

β° WF ground level (MGL) were calculated for the three standard
types of Series 1 OLE structure by Buro Happold (2015a,
2015b, 2015c) and are summarised in Table 1. These define the
d range of interest for comparative calculations for the foun-
dation analysis methods. The structure must fulfil serviceability
Figure 2. Idealised foundation loads limits on variable-load deflection at the wire height under a 1
in 3 year wind load but not under a 1 in 50 wind load, when
Table 1. Characteristic (design or service) worst-case combinations of vertical and across-track loads (horizontal and moment) associated
with three types of Series 1 OLE structure (Buro Happold, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c)
Structure type Loading direction Permanent Variable (3 year wind return period) Variable (50 year wind return period)
STC Vertical: kN 10·47 — —

Horizontal: kN 1·16 9·051 13·260
Moment: kNm 13·69 55·656 80·680
TTC Vertical: kN 26·97 — —
Horizontal: kN 2·32 13·433 19·900
Moment: kNm 63·61 85·203 125·350
XL-TTC Vertical: kN 47·60 — —
Horizontal: kN — 21·274 29·400
Moment: kNm 180·70 171·608 235·800
3
the structure must fulfil only the ultimate limit state (ULS) are assumed to be in decaNewton (daN) and moments in
criterion. decaNewton-metres (daNm).
The symbols shown in Figure 2 mainly follow Fleming et al. (1 − Ep) is a correction factor to allow for a depth h′ of replaced,
(1994, 2009). Other authors use different symbols and some- unconsolidated or otherwise ineffective soil at the surface of the
times different terms. In the description and discussion of each foundation, and is calculated using the expression
method that follow, the original symbols are retained to facili- " vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
0 3 # u"
u 0 2 #3
tate reference back to the source documents. Later, where the
244 t 1 þ
h h
5: ð1 EpÞ ¼ 344 1 þ
results of different methods are compared, the Fleming et al. h h
(1994, 2009) notation and symbols are generally adopted.
A full list of symbols is provided in Appendix 1.
If the foundation is a cylindrical block of diameter d,

2.2 Empirical analysis: the International Union of e = b = a = 0·8d. Although MB is described as a ‘moment limit’,
Railways–Office for Research and Experiments the UIC-ORE (1957) report states that the foundation move-
(UIC-ORE) ments were small and remained stable at this load.
The International Union of Railways – Office for Research and
Experiments (UIC-ORE) method (UIC-ORE, 1957) is based The full-scale tests carried out under the auspices of the ORE
on a series of formulae derived from the results of reduced- investigated the effect of three different configurations of
scale model tests on square, rectangular and circular section ground (in a cutting, on the level and on an embankment) and
foundations in dry sand carried out and reported by Ramelot different degrees of support from the track (close to the track
and van Deperre (1950) and subsequently modified following a and further from the track, with pull towards the track and
series of full-scale tests. It is based purely on observation, and pull in the direction away from the track). These led to a final
does not explicitly distinguish between drained and undrained equation of the form
conditions. The relevant formulae are as follows.
6: Mult ¼ 2745 K ðMB Þ2=3
1: MB ¼ ðMrÞp ð1 EpÞ
where Mult in decaNewton-metres (daNm) is the ultimate

where moment of resistance of the foundation, measured at ground
level. (The original UIC-ORE report expresses Mult as (TH)limit,
2: ðMrÞp ¼ K 001 e Nr þ K 002 Δbh3 where T is the equivalent lateral load in decaNewton (daN) and
H (m) is the height above the top of the foundation at which it
acts). K is a numerical multiplier (‘K factor’), which accounts
0175 for the slope of the ground and the degree of support from the
3: K 001 ¼ 05136
054 þ ðb=eÞ track; values are given in Table 2, where i is the distance from
the track to the foundation (it is not clear how this is measured,
( ) e.g. from the centreline, or from the nearest rail). MB is in
965 daNm. Because the two sides of Equation 6 are dimensionally
4: K 002 ¼ 28
685 þ 3375 ½Nr=ð10ΔbeaÞ3 inconsistent, the constant 27·45 has units of (daNm)1/3. With T
in kN and H in metres (Mult and MB in kNm), the constant
½1 þ 045ðe=bÞ
becomes numerically equal to 5·194 and has units of (kNm)1/3.
MB is the moment limit at ground level; h is the total The allowable value of moment at ground level, MGL, is
embedded depth of the foundation block (interpreted as obtained by dividing the value of Mult from Equation 6 by a
the total; i.e. including any ineffective or unconsolidated factor of 3. This is equivalent to applying a partial factor to
depth, h′); e is the dimension of the block, viewed on plan, the ultimate resistance of the foundation, expressed as an over-
parallel to the overturning force; b is the dimension of the turning moment. In addition to the terrain ‘K factor’, foun-
block, viewed on plan, perpendicular to the overturning force; dation lengths may be further modified according to a series
a is the smaller of the two dimensions, e and b; Nr is the of corrections that account for the proximity to the crest of a
total vertical load (the weight of the block, the mast and slope and/or a drainage or cable trench (filled or unfilled).
equipment); Δ is the specific weight of the soil, ‘specific These corrections may either increase or reduce the foundation
weight’ being the term used in the UIC-ORE (1957) report. lengths, and are influenced by the shape of the foundation
The units are given as kg/m3; it seems that this is an approxi- cross-section on plan (parallelepiped or circular). Circular
mation for decaNewtons per cubic metre (daN/m3), because foundations are slightly more sensitive to topographical fea-
(although it is not obvious in the UIC-ORE report) the forces tures, as summarised in Appendix 2.
4
Table 2. ORE K factors (UIC-ORE, 1957) The authority of the method derives from the international
Direction of pull collaborative research that went into developing it, together with
the fact that it has been used extensively and successfully by
Towards track railway administrations in Europe for decades – including on
Terrain Away from Network Rail and High-Speed 1 (AMEC SPIE Rail, 2000).
(topography) track i>2 m i<2 m
Embankment 0·85 0·95 1·5 Given the empirical nature of the method, it is important that it
Level 1 1·3 2 should not be used outside its current evidence base. In particu-
Cutting 1·5 1·8 2 lar, the tests described in the original UIC-ORE (1957) report
& were for concrete foundations up to 3 m long

2.3 OLE Master Index (OLEMI) & involved design moments at ground level of up to
Inspection of Equations 2 and 4 shows that neglecting the ver- 130 kNm away from the track and 170 kNm towards the
tical loads WM, WF and w (Nr in Equations 2 and 4) will lead track for flat terrain (K = 1), and design moments at
to a conservative design. The simplification resulting from not ground level of up to 190 kNm away from the track
having to consider the effect of the foundation weight enables and 230 kNm towards the track in a cutting (K = 1·8).
generic look-up charts or tables to be developed. Neglecting
the weight of the foundation also removes any distinction in The report also states that the unconsolidated depth, h′, would
the calculation between foundations made of steel and foun- not normally be expected to exceed 0·5 m; and cautions that
dations made of concrete. Thus a relationship between total the full effect of the foundation weight, although appearing in
foundation depth, h, and factored ultimate moment resistance, the factor K2′ defined in Equation 4, is not completely captured
Mult/3, may be developed that is a function of only the foun- by the equations.
dation cross-sectional dimensions (e.g. the diameter, d), the
effective soil unit weight, γ* (= γ ðdu=dzÞ), and the disturbed A review of Network Rail’s experience of the OLEMI method
or unconsolidated soil depth, h′. (du=dz is the rate of increase (Mootoosamy et al., 2015) highlighted its use in the design of
in pore water pressure, u, with depth z. In hydrostatic con- a range of foundations since 1984, with no reported instances
ditions, du=dz ¼ γw and γ* = (γ − γw).) of subsequent associated failure (collapse or loss of serviceabil-
ity). Electrification of the East Coast Main Line between 1986
This is the basis of the OLEMI method of design, a modified and 1992 represents the most extensive use of ORE-based
and more conservative version of the ORE approach in which foundation design in the UK, in which the Master Series
the beneficial effect of the weight of the foundation and OLE ‘strength depth’ tables were applied to both concrete and
structure is neglected (Mootoosamy et al., 2015). For the 610 mm dia. circular hollow section (CHS) steel piles between
Series 1 loads (Table 1), OLEMI gives foundations that are Hitchin and Carstairs (by way of Edinburgh), supporting the
typically 10 to 20% longer than those determined using the Mk3B 25 kVAC OLE and associated masts. Historical records
original ORE method. This paper reports pile lengths derived also reveal the successful application of the Master Series
using the OLEMI methodology. method to the design of foundations in alluvium and chalk,
and to a more limited extent, peat. These geologies are
In a further development, the UK Master Series (Network excluded from the range of applicability of the ORE method
Rail, 2015a) provides ‘strength depth’ tables for allocating con- given in the original UIC-ORE document.
crete and tubular steel pile foundations based on an OLEMI
2.5 Analysis based on allowable lateral stresses:
design using an ineffective near-surface depth h′ = 0·3 m, a
the Balfour Beatty Power Construction Ltd (BBPCL)
terrain factor K = 1·3 or K = 1 (i.e. level ground with across-
method
track or away-from-track loading, respectively) and a soil effec-
The BBPCL Foundation Design Manual (BBPCL, 1990)
tive unit weight γ* = 15 kN/m3. Appendix 2 summarises the
describes methods of design analysis based on allowable lateral
factors and additional corrections that must be applied to
stress distributions on piles in terms of both effective and total
extend the foundation ‘strength depth’ tables to foundation
stresses (corresponding to drained and undrained conditions,
allocation for different foundation types, terrain conditions
respectively). These are illustrated in Figure 3. The effective
and loading directions.
stress distribution was originally proposed by Sulzberger
(1945). Explanatory notes relating to the BBPCL approach are
2.4 Range of applicability of ORE and OLEMI methods given in Table 3.
The ORE method is empirical, in that Equation 6 was deter-
mined directly from experimental results in a range of terrain In both cases (drained and undrained), the net lateral stress dis-
types, rather than by considering either a limiting or an tribution is automatically in horizontal equilibrium; hence an
in-service (‘working’) stress distribution – something that is diffi- additional average lateral pressure in front of the foundation of
cult to address in sloping terrain such as an embankment. H/(LD) (where L is the width of the foundation perpendicular
5
KD
3 S
‘A’ D/6
D D
3 2 D
‘A’
2D 3
3 ‘O’
D
3 D
‘O’ D
D
11D 3
‘B’ 2
48 ‘B’
D/6
KD
S
(a) (b)
Figure 3. (a) Allowable net lateral effective and (b) total stress distributions on a pile foundation of effective length D, subjected to an
overturning moment M (redrawn from BBPCL, 1990)
Table 3. Explanatory notes for BBPCL allowable stress distributions given in Figure 3
Height of ‘centre of Moment about
Stress overturning’ above centre of Soil stress
distribution base of foundation overturning parameter Notes on soil stress parameter
3
Effective D/3 D KL K K varies from 200 kPa/m for sandstone/limestone to 80 kPa/m for
M¼
12 medium dense sand. Method not recommended for loose materials
Total D/2 PD2 ðL þ C Þa S S varies from 180 kPa for very stiff boulder clay to 84 kPa for firm
clays. Method not recommended for medium/soft clays
D, foundation depth; L, foundation length on plan

a
The width of the foundation, L, is increased by an amount C (C = 0·4 m for L > 1 m is suggested), to account for the fact that the supposed failure surface spreads out
into the soil
to the direction of H, and D is the effective depth of the foun- Equivalent horizontal load (He)
dation) would be needed to resist the net horizontal force, H. and moment (He e) Ground level h'
Ineffective depth
Although the BBPCL method has been used successfully in the
design of OLE mast pile foundations, it has fallen out of favour
in recent times. Being based on permissible stresses, it does not Centre of
rotation
readily fit within the framework of Eurocode 7 (BSI, 2013) and
zp
uses soil parameters whose determination is to an extent subjec-
l
tive. It will therefore not be considered further in this paper. Resisting
earth pressure
2.6 Analysis based on limiting lateral stresses

Resisting
(following Brinch Hansen, 1961; earth pressure
Broms, 1964a, 1964b; Fleming et al., 1994, 2009)
d
2.6.1 Effective stresses
The design approach developed for GWEP is based on fac-
tored limiting net lateral stress distributions. It broadly follows Figure 4. Net lateral stresses assumed in effective stress LEA of a
laterally loaded pile
the approach given in textbooks such as Fleming et al. (2009),
which is itself based on principles suggested by Brinch Hansen
(1961) or Broms (1964a, 1964b).
There are differences in the detail of the assumed
The form of the limiting lateral stress distribution assumed for limiting lateral stress distribution proposed by the various
drained (effective stress) conditions is illustrated in Figure 4. authors.
6
Brinch Hansen (1961) bases the equivalent lateral stress near significant difference. For example, for ϕ′ = 30°, Kp without
the surface on an assumed three-dimensional passive failure friction is 3 whereas Kp with full interface friction, δ = ϕ′,
wedge, and includes an allowance for a contribution from is 5·67.
friction on the sides. At great depth, failure is assumed to
correspond to a bearing failure of the pile in the horizontal Brinch Hansen (1961) used values of passive pressure
0 0
plane, hence involves a term in Ko Kp eπ tan ϕ , where Kp eπ tan ϕ is coefficient for a frictional pile having δ = ϕ′. In contrast,
the bearing capacity factor, Nq. To avoid a discontinuity in Fleming et al. (1994) used values of Kp based on the classical
the lateral stress at failure between the two regimes, Brinch expression
Hansen (1961) proposed an empirical formula to achieve
ð1 þ sin ϕ0 Þ
a smooth transition between the values of net normalised 7: Kp ¼
ð1 sin ϕ0 Þ
lateral resistance, σh′ /γz, at the surface and at great (infinite)
depth.
for a pile/soil interface friction angle δ = 0.
Broms (1964b) proposes the use of a net normalised lateral
resistance, σh′ /γz, of Kp over the uppermost 1·5 pile diameters. The original work that led to the expressions for limiting
Failure occurs by the formation of a conventional shallow lateral resistance of 3Kp and K2p was based on tests carried out
passive wedge intersecting the soil surface; the apparent in sandy soils, with values of angle of shearing resistance ϕ′
neglect of side friction on the wedge is conservative. At depths likely to have been in excess of 30° (i.e. for which K2p > 3Kp).
greater than 1·5 pile diameters, where failure occurs by the Pan et al. (2012) reported three-dimensional finite-element
flow of soil around the pile, the net limiting lateral pressure analyses of laterally loaded piles in a soil having ϕ′ = 20°.
is taken as 3Kpγz. On the basis of data from Barton (1982), Computed limiting lateral pressures were bracketed by K2p with
Fleming et al. (1994) propose an approach similar to Broms Kp calculated using a pile/soil interface angle of friction δ = ϕ′,
(1964b), but with a net normalised lateral resistance of K2p and 3Kp calculated using δ = 0. This suggests that the conven-
below a depth of 1·5 pile diameters. As explained below, tional approach of taking a limit defined by K2p with Kp cal-
the approach proposed by Broms (1964b) was adopted for the culated using δ = 0 may be conservative for lower strength soils.
comparative analyses presented in this paper. In general, however, the work of Pan (2013) supports the use of
Equation 7 – which assumes a pile/soil interface friction angle
The key features of the effective stress limit equilibrium δ = 0 – to calculate Kp in the empirical formulae for determin-
analyses (LEAs) carried out for the present study were that ing limiting lateral pile pressures, as in Fleming et al. (1994).
& the loading system was taken as statically equivalent to a The use of Equation 7 (δ = 0) is further supported by the likely
moment MGL = Hee and an equivalent lateral load He, need to invoke shear stresses acting tangentially on the pile (to
both acting at the top of the foundation (ground level) carry torque), and/or vertically (to help carry vertical load, if
& the pile is of diameter d and total length l, and rotates the base bearing pressure is not sufficient). It could thus be
about a ‘pivot point’ at a depth zp below ground level unsafe to assume that soil/pile interface shear stresses in poss-
& where the pile moves into the soil (i.e. in front of the pile ibly a different direction will be available to enhance the lateral
above the pivot point and behind the pile below it), passive stresses on the pile. It was therefore decided to calculate values
pressures are developed; the net passive pressure is given by of Kp using Equation 7, without any enhancement for soil/pile
Kp times the nominal vertical effective stress (γ*z, where friction effects.
γ ¼ γ ðdu=dzÞ), down to a depth of 1·5 times the pile
diameter d; and 3Kp times the nominal vertical effective Where the pile is being pushed towards the outer face of an
stress below this depth, where Kp is the passive pressure embankment of slope β, Equation 7 may be modified to take
coefficient account of the rotation in principal stresses that occurs
& the equations of moment and horizontal force equilibrium between the pile and the soil surface as a result of the slope. If
were used to find the two unknown depths, l and zp the ratio of the slope angle β to the effective soil friction angle
& active pressures in zones where the pile is supposed to be ϕ′ is high, the modified value of Kp may be less than 1. For
moving away from the soil were assumed to be small and this reason, three-dimensional effects were represented in the
were ignored current calculations by an effective lateral pressure coefficient
& the vertical load on the foundation is assumed to be of 3Kp (following Broms, 1964b), rather than K2p (following
carried in base bearing. Fleming et al., 1994).
There may be some uncertainty concerning the appropriate A further point concerns the relationship between the surface
value of passive pressure coefficient Kp – in particular, whether zone soil of 1·5 times the pile diameter d (in which the limiting
it should take a numerical value that reflects possible interface lateral stresses are taken as Kp, rather than 3Kp or K2p times the
friction between the pile and the soil. This could make a very vertical effective stresses) and the UIC-ORE ineffective depth
7
of disturbed, replaced or otherwise unconsolidated soil near Case (i ): l ≤ 4·5d Ineffective depth 1·5d Ground level
the top of the foundation. It seems reasonable that the ineffec-
tive surface layer would at least act as a surcharge on the soil
below it, enabling the ‘at depth’ failure mechanism to develop
z
below a depth of 1·5 times the pile diameter d. Thus, provided σh = 2cu
that the thickness of the ineffective layer is at least 1·5d, the zp
lateral stress may reasonably be taken as 3Kp times the vertical
σh = [2 + 7(zp – 1·5d )/3d ]cu l ≤ 4·5d
effective stress at all depths below it. This assumption has been
made here; it also has the benefit of simplifying the calcu-
lations. The ground in the vicinity of a railway line is likely to
be well compacted by trafficking, in which case the assumption σh = [2+7(zp – 1·5d )/3d]cu
of an ineffective zone is conservative.
σh = [2 + 7(l – 1·5d)/3d]cu
2.6.2 Total stresses (a)
Limiting net total lateral stress distributions for laterally
loaded piles, following Fleming et al. (1994, 2009), are shown Case (ii ): l ≥ 4·5d ≥ zp
in Figure 5 for three different ranges of pile length/diameter Ineffective depth 1·5d Ground level
ratio, l/d.
As with the effective stress analysis z

σh = 2cu zp
& the pile is subject to an equivalent horizontal load He 3d

acting at a height e above the top of the foundation l
(ground level), giving a moment at ground level MGL = Hee
& the pile is of diameter d and total length l, and rotates
about a ‘pivot point’ at a depth zp below ground level σh = [2 + 7(zp – 1·5d)/3d]cu
& where the pile moves into the soil (i.e. in front of the pile
above the pivot point and behind the pile below it), at
σh = 9cu
limiting equilibrium passive pressures are developed; (b)
active pressures where the pile is moving away from
the soil are ignored as being insignificant (and possibly
Case (iii): zp ≥ 4·5d
tensile) Ineffective depth 1·5d Ground level
& the implied failure mechanism in the soil changes from a
three-dimensional passive wedge near the surface to soil
flowing horizontally around the pile at greater depths,
z
where the vertical stress is sufficient to suppress upward σh = 2cu 3d
movement of the soil zp
& the equations of moment and horizontal force equilibrium l
are used to find the two unknown depths, l and zp
& a separate check would need to be carried out on the
vertical load capacity of the pile.
σh = 9cu
In this case, the limiting lateral load per unit pile depth, pu
(i.e. the limiting lateral total stress, σh, multiplied by the pile σh = 9cu
(c)
diameter, d ) is taken as zero over the assumed ineffective depth
of 1·5d, then
Figure 5. Limiting total lateral stresses on a laterally loaded pile in
a clay soil characterised by the undrained shear strength, cu:
7ðz 15d Þ
8: pu ¼ 2 þ cu d for depths 15d z 45d (a) l ≤ 4·5d; (b) zp ≤ 4·5d ≤ l; (c) zp ≥ 4·5d
3d
and
The maximum value of pu is just less than that determined
9: pu ¼ 9cu d for depths z 45d analytically for a frictionless pile by Randolph and Houlsby
(1984), leaving vertical and tangential shear stress capacity to
following Fleming et al., 1994). carry vertical load and torque.
8
2.6.3 Implementation within Eurocode 7 It is generally held that combination 2 will usually give the
In both the effective and total limiting lateral stress analyses, most onerous geotechnical conditions (greatest pile length,
it is necessary in design to apply partial factors as required by depth of embedment, etc.). However, both combinations must
Eurocode 7 (BSI, 2013, p. 33). Design approach 1 (DA1), in be checked.
which partial factors are applied to actions (A) and ground
strength parameters (M ), is adopted in the UK. For structures Applying the relevant partial factors to the characteristic per-
other than axially loaded piles, the designer must verify that ‘a manent (self-weight) and variable (wind, etc.) loads identified
limit state of rupture or excessive deformation will not occur in Table 1 for a wind with a 50 year return period gives the
with either of the following combinations of sets of partial factored loads for each type of structure indicated in Table 5.
factors. The corresponding characteristic loads for use in the
ORE/OLEMI calculation are also shown.
Combination 1: A1 + M1 + R1
Combination 2: A2 + M2 + R1.’ In the case of OLE support masts, the major variable load
is due to wind, which is assessed on a statistical basis as for
The numerical values of sets A1, A2, M1 and M2 of these example having a 50 year return period (i.e. a probability of
partial factors are reproduced in Table 4; the partial factors in 2% of being exceeded in any given year). That trains are unli-
set R1 are numerically equal to unity. kely to be running in such conditions is reflected in guidance
on wind loading of OLE structures (Network Rail, 2015b) by
the relaxation of the need for the structure to meet the service-
Table 4. Partial factors sets A1, A2, M1 and M2 from Eurocode 7
ability (displacement) requirement under the 50 year return
(values in R1 are equal to 1·0)
period wind loading.
Action Symbol Set A1 Set A2
Permanent Unfavourable γG 1·35 1·0

3. Comparative calculations
Favourable γG 1·0 1·0
Variable Unfavourable γQ 1·5 1·3 Calculations have been carried out to compare the results
Favourable γQ 0 0 of the OLEMI and limit equilibrium approaches; the latter
(Eurocode 7, Table A3, p. 130) in both drained (effective stress) and undrained (total stress)
conditions (ORE/OLEMI does not draw a distinction). The
Soil parameter Symbol Set M1 Set M2
characteristic loads, topography and soil conditions investi-
tanϕ0 γϕ0 1·0 1·25 gated are summarised in Table 6.
c0 γ0c 1·0 1·25
τu (cu) γcu 1·0 1·4 In the effective stress limit equilibrium approach, values of Kp
Unit weight γγ 1·0 1·0
(Eurocode 7, Table A4, p. 130
were determined using Equation 10, to account for the effect
of the embankment slope angle β (β ≤ ϕ′), assuming a soil/pile
Table 5. Factored loads associated with three types of Series 1 OLE structure for different design methods (50 year wind return period)
STC TTC XL-TTC
(a) Across track

Eurocode 7 Factored He: kN 21·456 32·982 44·1
DA1 C1 Factored MGL: kNm 139·5015 273·899 597·645
Equivalent height of load, e: m 6·502 8·304 13·552
ORE/OLEMI Characteristic MGL: kNm 94·37 188·96 416·5
(b) Away from track

ORE/OLEMI Characteristic MGL: kNm 66·99 61·74 55·10
Note: The ORE/OLEMI calculation takes only the characteristic load (additional partial factors are not applied); this is purely in terms of a moment, not a lateral force
and a height of action
9
Table 6. Characteristic loads, topography and soil conditions investigated in comparative calculations
Structures considered STC; TTC; XL-TTC
Loads (horizontal load, He, and equivalent height of action, e, or moment at ground level, MGL) See Table 5
Soil unit weight, γ: kN/m3 18
Soil effective unit weight, γ ¼ γ ðdu=dzÞ: kN/m3 (and corresponding pore water pressure 18 (du=dz ¼ u ¼ 0) (zero pore water pressures)
gradient du=dz) 8 (du=dz ¼ 10 kPa=m) (hydrostatic)
Soil effective angle of shearing resistance, ϕ0 : degrees (effective stress LEAs) 20; 32½; 45
Soil undrained shear strength, cu: kPa (total stress LEA) 30; 60; 120
Embankment slope angle, β: degrees 0 to 40 (maximum)
Location of foundation At embankment crest
friction angle δ = 0 In all calculations, the pile was circular in cross-section with
an outside diameter d = 0·61 m, and an ineffective depth of
0
σh0 cos2 βð1 þ sin θÞ e2θ tan ϕ 0·915 m (1·5 times the pile diameter) was assumed.
10: Kp ¼ ¼
γz ½1 sin ϕ0 cosðΔ1 βÞ
The limit equilibrium calculations were carried out using the
where factored loads (C1 or C2) indicated in Table 5, and factored
soil strengths (C2) as required by Eurocode 7. In all cases, C2
gave greater pile lengths than C1. Calculations were carried
Δ1 þ β
11: θ¼ out for across-track wind loads acting both towards and away
2
from the track. In most cases, the first (where the wind
moment acts with the structural load) gave the greater pile
and
length. However, at steeper embankment slopes, the second
sin β (with a smaller applied moment) gave the greater pile length,
12: sin Δ1 ¼ because the dominant effect was the reduced ground resistance
sin ϕ0
due to the presence of the slope when the pile is pushed
outward towards the surface of the embankment.
Equation 10 was derived using the principles of stress No further factors were applied in the OLEMI calculations, as
analysis set out in, for example, Powrie (2014). It is approxi- the required load factors are already included in the equations.
mate, as there may in reality be insufficient space within
the embankment to accommodate the implied rotation in Results are presented for the effective stress LEAs in drained
the principal stress direction between the pile and the soil ground with zero pore water pressures, as graphs of the
surface.
7·0
In the total stress analysis, the effect of the embankment slope
6·5 γ * = 18 kN/m3 STC
in reducing the limiting lateral earth pressures is more difficult
6·0 Across track (MGL)
to account for simply, as the geometry of the Mohr circle of
5·5
Pile length, l: m
stress associated with the undrained shear strength failure cri- Away from track (–MGL)
5·0
terion leads to a non-linearity with depth. For a horizontal 4·5 φ' = 32·5°
force in the direction away from the track, finite-element ana- 4·0 φ' = 20° φ' = 45°
OLEMI
lyses by Georgiadis and Georgiadis (2010) suggest that the 3·5
slope may reduce the ultimate lateral resistance to pile move- 3·0
ment by a maximum of about 20%, while field tests by 2·5
OLEMI
Nimityongskul et al. (2018) show that the slope has no notice- 2·0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
able effect for piles installed on the crest at or beyond a hori-
Embankment slope angle, β : degrees
zontal distance of eight pile diameters from the top of the
slope. However, for OLE structures, the greater horizontal
Figure 6. Pile length l as a function of slope angle β, for soil
force is usually in the direction towards the track. Finite- effective friction angles of 20, 32·5 and 45°. STC, effective stress
element analyses by Kanagasabai et al. (2011) suggest that, limit equilibrium and OLEMI analyses with zero pore water
in this case, where the net lateral stress on the pile is acting pressures. Soil–pile interface friction angle δ = 0. All necessary load
downslope, a slope angle of up to at least 22° makes little and strength factors applied. Soil unit weight 18 kN/m3. Note: the
difference to the ultimate lateral pressure on the pile. Hence soil strengths indicated apply only to the limit equilibrium
calculations – the OLEMI method does not use the soil strength,
results of total stress analyses are presented only for level only the unit weight/density
ground, β = 0.
10
required pile embedment depth l against the embankment 8·5, 13·5 and 23·5 (which covers the range for the OLE masts
slope angle β, for values of ϕ′ of 20°, 32·5° and 45°, for the under consideration; see Table 5). Numerical values of pile
STC, the TTC and the XL-TTC in Figures 6, 7 and 8, respect- length l, including the ineffective depth of 1·5d, for the STC,
ively. The corresponding results for waterlogged ground with TTC and XL-TTC with the appropriate partial factors applied
hydrostatic pore water pressure conditions (du=dz ¼ 10 kPa=m) to loads and soil strengths are compared with the OLEMI-
are shown in Figures 9, 10 and 11, respectively. derived lengths for level ground (β = 0) in Table 7. In the limit
equilibrium calculations in level ground, towards-track loading
Results for the undrained (total stress) LEAs are presented with the partial factors associated with DA1 combination 2
non-dimensionally in Figure 12 as graphs of the required pile
length/diameter ratio (l/d) against normalised horizontal load
Hee/cud 2, for normalised heights of action of He(e/d) of 3·5, 9·0
8·5 γ * = 8 kN/m
3
STC
8·0
7·0 7·5 Across track (MGL)
γ * = 18 kN/m3
Pile length, l: m
6·5 TTC 7·0 Away from track (–MGL)
6·0 6·5
5·5 6·0 φ' = 32·5°
Pile length, l: m
5·0 φ' = 32·5° 5·5 OLEMI φ' = 20° φ' = 45°

φ' = 20° OLEMI
OLEMI 5·0
4·5 OLEMI
φ' = 45° 4·5
4·0 4·0
3·5 3·5
3·0 3·0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
2·5
2·0 Embankment slope angle, β : degrees
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Embankment slope angle, β : degrees Figure 9. Pile length, l, as a function of slope angle β, for soil
effective friction angles of 20, 32·5 and 45°. STC, effective stress
Figure 7. Pile length, l, as a function of slope angle β, for soil limit equilibrium and OLEMI analyses with hydrostatic pore water
effective friction angles of 20, 32·5 and 45°. TTC, effective stress pressures below a water table at the ground surface. Soil–pile
limit equilibrium and OLEMI analyses with zero pore water interface friction angle δ = 0. All necessary load and strength
pressures. Soil–pile interface friction angle δ = 0. All necessary load factors applied. Soil unit weight 18 kN/m3 (effective unit weight
and strength factors applied. Soil unit weight 18 kN/m3. Note: the 8 kN/m3). Note: the soil strengths indicated apply only to the limit
soil strengths indicated apply only to the limit equilibrium equilibrium calculations – the OLEMI method does not use the soil
calculations – the OLEMI method does not use the soil strength, strength, only the unit weight/density
only the unit weight/density
9·0
7·0 8·5 γ * = 8 kN/m3 TTC
OLEMI 8·0
6·5 γ * = 18 kN/m3
7·5
6·0 φ' = 20° φ' = 32·5°
Pile length, l: m
OLEMI 7·0
5·5 φ' = 45°
φ' = 32·5°
Pile length, l: m
6·5 OLEMI φ' = 20°

5·0 6·0 OLEMI
4·5 5·5
φ' = 45°
4·0 5·0
4·5
3·5 4·0
3·0 3·5
2·5 XL-TTC 3·0
2·0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Embankment slope angle, β : degrees
Figure 10. Pile length, l, as a function of slope angle β, for soil
Figure 8. Pile length, l, as a function of slope angle β, for soil effective friction angles of 20, 32·5 and 45°. TTC, effective stress
effective friction angles of 20, 32·5 and 45°. XL-TTC, effective limit equilibrium and OLEMI analyses with hydrostatic pore water
stress limit equilibrium and OLEMI analyses. Soil–pile interface pressures below a water table at the ground surface. Soil–pile
friction angle δ = 0. All necessary load and strength factors interface friction angle δ = 0. All necessary load and strength
applied. Soil unit weight 18 kN/m3. Note: the soil strengths factors applied. Soil unit weight 18 kN/m3 (effective unit weight
indicated apply only to the limit equilibrium calculations – the 8 kN/m3). Note: the soil strengths indicated apply only to the limit
OLEMI method does not use the soil strength, only the unit equilibrium calculations – the OLEMI method does not use the soil
weight/density strength, only the unit weight/density
11
9·0 (including a factor of 1·4 on the undrained shear strength of

8·5 γ * = 8 kN/m3 the soil) was always the most onerous condition.
8·0
φ' = 20° φ' = 32·5° OLEMI
7·5 OLEMI
4. Commentary
Pile length, l: m
7·0 φ' = 45°

6·5 Generally, the results of the two methods of calculation are,
6·0 perhaps surprisingly, broadly consistent.
5·5
5·0
4.1 Effective stress analyses
4·5
4·0 For the effective stress analyses
3·5 XL-TTC
3·0 & in level ground (β = 0) with zero pore water pressures, the
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
OLEMI calculation gives an embedment depth just less
than the LEA with ϕ′ = 32·5° for the STC (Figure 6),
Figure 11. Pile length, l, as a function of slope angle β, just greater than the LEA with ϕ′ = 32·5° for the TTC
for soil effective friction angles of 20, 32·5 and 45°. XL-TTC, (Figure 7), and greater than the LEA ϕ′ = 20° for the
effective stress limit equilibrium and OLEMI analyses with XL-TTC (Figure 8)
hydrostatic pore water pressures below a water table at the & in waterlogged level ground (β = 0) with hydrostatic pore
ground surface. Soil–pile interface friction angle δ = 0. All
necessary load and strength factors applied. Soil unit weight water pressures, the difference between the two calculations
18 kN/m3 (effective unit weight 8 kN/m3). Note: the soil strengths for the STC (Figure 9) is increased slightly (i.e. the
indicated apply only to the limit equilibrium calculations – the OLEMI calculation is relatively more unconservative), but
OLEMI method does not use the soil strength, only the unit for the TTC (Figure 10) and the XL-TTC (Figure 11) there
weight/density is no real relative change
& as the slope angle is increased, the OLEMI calculation
(which is insensitive to slope angles β < 20°) gives
increasingly more unconservative (i.e. relatively shorter)
14 pile lengths (Figures 6–11)
zp/d>4·5 23·5
& at a slope of 20°, there is a step change in the OLEMI pile
12
13·5 length which makes it greater than that calculated by the
10 8·5 LEA for ϕ′ = 32·5° and ϕ′ = 45° (Figures 6–11)
3·5 & as the slope angle is increased towards 45°, the OLEMI
8
calculation for the STC (Figures 6 and 9) gradually
l/d
e/d
6 becomes unconservative again, first relative to the limit
zp/d<4·5<l/d
4 equilibrium calculation for ϕ′ = 32·5° and then to that for
ϕ′ = 45°. However, this does not occur for the TTC
2 l/d<4·5
(Figures 7 and 10) or the XL-TTC (Figures 8 and 11). For
h = 1·5d'
0 these structures, the OLEMI calculation consistently gives
0 2 4 6 8 10 pile depths greater than the LEAs for ϕ′ = 32·5°and
Hee/cud2 ϕ′ = 45°, except for the TTC with slope angles greater than
about 25° (waterlogged, Figure 10) or 26° (zero pore water
Figure 12. Dimensionless pile length l/d as a function of pressures, Figure 7) and ϕ′ = 32·5° (Figures 7 and 10).
dimensionless load He/cud 2, for normalised heights of action of He
Also, it must be recognised that the maximum slope using
(e/d ) of 3·5, 8·5, 13·5 and 23·5; total stress LEAs (slope β = 0,
ineffective pile depth of 1·5d included) the OLEMI approach of 45° is greater than the maximum
slope permitted with any of the effective stress analyses
having ϕ′ ≤ 45° (Figures 6–11).
Table 7. Comparison of OLEMI-derived values with the most onerous pile lengths, l (including the ineffective depth of 1·5d ), for the STC,
TTC and XL-TTC (DA1 C2 for towards-track loading, with the appropriate partial factors applied to loads and soil strengths) calculated in
total stress LEAs (β = 0)
LEA (DA1 C2, towards track)
Pile lengths: m cu = 30 kPa cu = 60 kPa cu = 120 kPa OLEMI pile lengths: m
STC 3·96 3·13 2·56 2·83

TTC 4·90 3·80 3·02 3·73
XL-TTC 6·30 4·80 3·75 5·26
12
It is notable that, for the XL-TTC (Figures 8 and 11), the Calculations seen by the authors of this paper suggest two
OLEMI calculation always gives a greater pile depth than the main reasons for the specification of such long pile lengths.
LEA except for moderate slopes with ϕ′ = 20°. These were overconservatism in (a) the specified limiting
lateral earth pressure coefficient (the authors have suggested
4.2 Total stress analyses the use of 3Kp, calculated using a soil/pile friction angle δ = 0);
For the total stress analyses in level ground (Table 7) and (b) the equivalent linear soil stiffness parameters used in
serviceability limit state (SLS) pile–soil interaction analyses.
& the OLEMI calculation gives pile lengths between those
calculated using the LEA for undrained shear strengths of
60 kPa and 30 kPa for the TTC and the XLTTC, and 5.1 Limiting lateral earth pressure coefficient
between those calculated for undrained shear strengths of Calculations carried out using the program ‘Wallap’ for struc-
120 kPa and 60 kPa for the STC. The equivalent undrained tures between Stockley and Maidenhead appear to have used a
shear strength reduces from about 78 kPa for the STC limiting passive earth pressure coefficient, Kp, based on a
through 58 kPa for the TTC to 33 kPa for the XL-TTC. pile/soil friction angle δ/ϕ′ of ≈ 0·45, but without the enhance-
ment factor of 3 to allow for three-dimensional effects. The
Thus the OLEMI approach becomes relatively less unconser- results of further limit equilibrium calculations summarised in
vative or even more conservative compared with the LEA as Figures 13–16 show that, in level ground, using δ/ϕ′ = 0·45
the foundation moment is increased, in both the undrained makes very little difference compared with using δ = 0, but that
and drained analyses. the neglect of the empirical factor of 3 on Kp to allow for
three-dimensional effects generally increases the calculated pile
4.3 Summary length by about 50% (compare Figure 6 with Figure 13 for
Overall, the degree of unconservatism of the OLEMI approach a STC with a low groundwater level (GWL), Figure 8 with
compared with the LEA is only really a potential concern for Figure 14 for an XL-TTC with a low GWL, Figure 9 with
relatively small loads (i.e. the STC) in soil having a relatively Figure 15 for a STC with a high GWL, and Figure 11
low effective angle of shearing resistance (ϕ′ 20°). These soils with Figure 16 for an XL-TTC with a high GWL).
are likely to be clays, for which an undrained analysis of their
response to short-term, transient loading is likely to be appro-
5.2 Effective (linear) soil stiffness
priate. In these conditions, the OLEMI method is generally
The second issue arose from an attempt to carry out SLS
conservative, unless the undrained shear strength of the ground
assessments aimed at limiting the calculated structural deflec-
is less than 78 kPa for the STC and less than 33 kPa for the
tion at wire height. The SLS was in the first initially rather
XL-TTC. It must also be recalled that the Broms-type limit
poorly defined, owing to uncertainty about the permissible
equilibrium calculation is itself far from rigorous, especially for
deflection (given the liveliness of the catenary itself, and the
the effective stress analysis; it involves significant assumptions,
lateral stagger, i.e. designed-in to even out pantograph wear).
approximations, empiricism and uncertainty, as has already
been discussed in this paper.
12
Kp
5. Discussion and further analysis in the 11
context of the GWEP 10
Given the broad consistency between the results of the limit
Pile length, l: m
9
equilibrium and OLEMI methods, in both drained (zero pore
8
water pressure) and waterlogged (hydrostatic) conditions, the
7 φ' = 32·5°
question arises – although not the main thrust of this paper – as φ' = 20° φ' = 45°
6 δ /φ' = 0·45
to why the early design calculations associated with GWEP
seemed to result in excessive pile embedment depths. For 5
example, as-built drawings and records for OLE foundations 4
installed at Langley, Berkshire, indicate installed pile lengths of 3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
6·5 to 7·0 m for 0·762 m dia. CHS piles subject to a character-
istic across-track moment (associated with a TTC) of 140 kNm.
Based on γ* = 18 kN/m3, an ineffective depth h′ = 1·143 m Figure 13. Pile length, l, as a function of slope angle, β, for soil
(1·5d), the OLEMI-calculated lengths for piles located on the effective friction angles of 20, 32·5 and 45°. STC, effective stress
crest of an embankment (k = 0·95), in level ground (k = 1·3) and LEAs with the empirical enhancement factor of 3 to allow for
in a cutting (k = 1·8) are 3·87, 3·24 and 2·89 m, respectively. For three-dimensional effects omitted. Soil–pile interface friction angle
δ = 0. All necessary load and strength factors applied. Zero pore
waterlogged ground with γ* = 8 kN/m3, the OLEMI-calculated
water pressures, soil unit weight 18 kN/m3. The results of
lengths are 4·75 m on an embankment (k = 0·95), 3·99 m in calculations for a slope angle β = 0 and δ/ϕ0 = 0·45 are also shown
level ground (k = 1·3) and 3·51 m in a cutting (k = 1·8).
13
12 12
Kp XL-TTC Kp φ' = 32·5°
11 11 φ' = 20°
10 10 φ' = 45°
Pile length, l: m
Pile length, l: m
9 φ' = 20° φ' = 32·5° 9
φ' = 45°
8 8
7 7
6 6 δ/φ' = 0·45
5 5 High GWL
δ/φ' = 0·45
4 4 XL-TTC
3 3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Embankment slope angle, β : degrees Embankment slope angle, β : degrees
Figure 14. Pile length, l, as a function of slope angle, β, for soil Figure 16. Pile length, l, as a function of slope angle, β, for soil
effective friction angles of 20, 32·5 and 45°. XL-TTC, effective effective friction angles of 20, 32·5 and 45°. XL-TTC, effective
stress LEAs with the empirical enhancement factor of 3 to allow stress LEAs with hydrostatic pore water pressures below a water
for three-dimensional effects omitted. Soil–pile interface friction table at the ground surface, with the empirical enhancement
angle δ = 0. All necessary load and strength factors applied. factor of 3 to allow for three-dimensional effects omitted. Soil–
Zero pore water pressures, soil unit weight 18 kN/m3. pile interface friction angle δ = 0. All necessary load and strength
The results of calculations for a slope angle β = 0 and δ/ϕ0 = 0·45 factors applied. Soil unit weight 18 kN/m3 (effective unit weight
are also shown 8 kN/m3). The results of calculations for a slope angle β = 0 and
δ/ϕ0 = 0·45 are also shown
12
Kp
11 It is difficult to find representative stiffnesses for granular soils
High GWL in the literature. Nonetheless, recognising the Eurocode 7
10
requirement for the parameter value used in calculations
Pile length, l: m
9
to reflect the limit state under consideration (in this case, the
8 φ' = 20° φ' = 32·5°
φ' = 45°
SLS and therefore at small or moderate strains), some of these
7
values do seem to be more appropriate to much less competent
6 materials; for example, Duley (2019) measured an equivalent
5 small strain Young’s modulus of 12 MPa for a very soft organic
4 δ/φ' = 0·45 silt of bulk density 1·2 Mg/m3 at a confining stress of 17 kPa.
3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
To investigate the influence of foundation pile length and
Embankment slope angle, β : degrees assumed soil stiffness on this potential SLS, the component of
the horizontal deflection of the track support structure at wire
Figure 15. Pile length, l, as a function of slope angle, β, for soil
effective friction angles of 20, 32·5 and 45°. STC, effective stress
height resulting from the deflection/rotation of the pile head was
LEAs with hydrostatic pore water pressures below a water table at estimated using the Oasys (Oasys, 2017) program ALP (analysis
the ground surface, with the empirical enhancement factor of 3 of laterally loaded piles), as summarised in Appendix 3. Both
to allow for three-dimensional effects omitted. Soil–pile interface an STC and an XL-TTC were considered, with soil Young’s
friction angle δ = 0. All necessary load and strength factors moduli of 15, 30 and 60 MPa and pile lengths equal to one and
applied. Soil unit weight 18 kN/m3 (effective unit weight
8 kN/m3). The results of calculations for a slope angle β = 0 and
two times those calculated using the OLEMI method for hydro-
δ/ϕ0 = 0·45 are also shown static (i.e. worst case) pore water pressures: these loading and
ground conditions are summarised in Table 8.
A further problem is that the calculated deflection and The results of the ALP calculations, summarised in Figures 17
rotation at the pile head will often depend on the equivalent and 18 with the calculated wire height deflections given in
linear elastic soil stiffness chosen for use in the calculation. Table 9, show the following.
For example, Krechowiecki-Shaw and Alobaidi (2015)
report the results of SLS calculations carried out using an effec- & In all cases, the calculated across-track wire height
tive Young’s modulus of 15 MPa for what is described as a deflection due to the variable component of load is less
medium dense sand. Young’s moduli used in the calculations than the limit of 50 mm specified in Network Rail
for structures between Maidenhead and Stockley Park (other Standard NR/SP/ELP/27215 (Network Rail, 2004).
than in the surface zone) ranged from 12 MPa for a loose, & For the STC and a 3·5 m pile length, the calculated
sandy gravel to 60 MPa for a medium dense gravelly sand. deflection is approximately linearly dependent on the
14
Table 8. Input parameters and assumptions for ALP analyses

Parameter Value/assumptions
Applied loading (moment at ground level): 94·37 kNm (STC): 416·5 kNm (XL-TTC)
from Table 1
Ratio variable to total moment at ground level 0·855 (STC): 0·566 (XL-TTC)
(from Table 1)
Pile diameter, d (m); wall thickness, t (mm) 0·61 m; 16 mm
Pile bending stiffness, EI 263 MNm2
Pile length 3·5 m and 7·0 m (STC), 6·7 m and 13·4 m (XL-TTC): these correspond to the OLEMI
calculated depth and two times the OLEMI calculated depth for the specified pile loading
Contact wire height above pile top 5·5 m
Ineffective soil depth 1·5 pile diameter, d
Soil strength, ϕ0 30°
Soil Young’s modulus, E0 : kPa 15, 30 and 60 MPa: these correspond to one, two and four times the value of
15 MPa used by Krechowiecki-Shaw and Alobaidi (2015)
Limiting lateral soil stress below ineffective 3Kp vertical effective stress at the same depth
depth
Soil unit weight, γ 18 kN/m3
Pore water pressures Hydrostatic below a water table at ground level
8 (1) (2)(3) (4)

5
6 (1) (2) (3) (4)
4 0
Pile Length, l: m
–10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Pile length, l: m
2
–5
0
–10 0 10 20 30 40
–2 –10
(1): 7 m, 15 MPa (1): 6·7 m, 60 MPa
–4 (2): 3·5 m, 60 MPa (2): 6·7 m, 30 MPa
–15 (3): 13·4 m, 15 MPa
(3): 3·5 m, 30 MPa
–6 STC: 3Kp (4): 3·5 m, 15 MPa XL-TTC: 3Kp (4): 6·7 m, 15 MPa
–8 –20
Deflection: mm Deflection: mm
Figure 17. Calculated pile deflections using ALP analysis – STC. Figure 18. Calculated pile deflections using ALP analysis –
Pile lengths and soil stiffnesses as indicated. Limiting lateral earth XL-TTC. Pile lengths and soil stiffnesses as indicated. Limiting
pressure coefficient = 9 (= 3Kp; ϕ0 = 30° and δ = 0) lateral earth pressure coefficient = 9 (= 3Kp; ϕ0 = 30° and δ = 0)
Table 9. Summary of calculated wire height deflections

assumed soil stiffness. This is unsurprising, as the 3·5 m Wire height
pile is effectively ‘short’, so that the mode of deformation deflection: mm
is essentially by rotation about a pivot point near the toe. Structure Pile Soil Young’s
Doubling the length to 7 m changes the pile behaviour type length: m modulus: MPa Total Variable
from ‘short’ to ‘long’ and the mode of deformation from STC 3·5 15 45·7 39·1
rigid body rotation to bending with the bottom end 30 25·2 21·5
effectively fixed. This brings a significant reduction in the 60 15·0 12·8
7·0 15 10·2 8·7
calculated wire height deflection.
XL-TTC 6·7 15 52·0 29·4
& For the XL-TTC, the calculated wire height deflection is 30 43·4 24·6
relatively insensitive to changes in soil stiffness and an 60 39·2 22·2
increase in the pile length. This is because the pile is 13·4 15 46·0 26·0
already ‘long’, with its lower end largely fixed.
The effectiveness of the fixity is improved slightly by
the increase in soil stiffness from 15 MPa to 30 MPa, For simple structures such as the majority of OLE mast
but deformation is predominantly due to pile bending and foundations, an attempt to carry out a separate SLS calculation
the effect of the soil stiffness is small. with inappropriate soils parameters is almost certainly
15
Table 10. Summary of loading and geometrical parameters and symbols used in the different methods of analysis source documents
Symbol(s) used
a
This paper (broadly
consistent with Fleming
Description of parameter et al. (1994, 2009)) BBPCL method ORE
Equivalent lateral load H [H ] T

Ineffective depth of soil h0 [h0 ] h0
Height of action of lateral e [e] H + h0
load above effective top
of foundation
Height of action of lateral (e − h0 ) [(e − h0 )] H
load above ground surface
Effective depth of foundation l D (h − h0 )
Foundation plan dimensions Diameter, d Length, L perpendicular e parallel and b perpendicular to the overturning
to the overturning load. a is the smaller of e and b. If the foundation
load is a cylinder of diameter, D, e = b = a = 0·8D
Depth from effective top of zp Assumed equal to 2D/3 N/A
foundation to pivot point
a
Denotes symbols adopted in comparative calculations
misconceived. Eurocode 7 (BSI, 2013) Clause 2.4.8 (4) does not conservative than the proven OLEMI method shows that
require an explicit SLS calculation provided for these types of structure, the limit equilibrium
calculation is very robust.
‘It may be verified that a sufficiently low fraction of the ground (b) The OLEMI approach is likely to give shorter piles than
strength is mobilised to keep deformations within the required the factored limit equilibrium calculation for smaller
serviceability limits, provided this simplified approach is restricted applied loads (i.e. a STC), soils of lower effective angle of
to design situations where established comparable experience exists shearing resistance and intermediate slope angles in the
with similar ground, structures and application method.’ range 10–20°. For soil strengths greater than about 30°,
higher loads (i.e. a TTC and an XL-TTC), and slope
angles less than about 10°or greater than 20°, the
Achieving this criterion was the original purpose of the ‘load OLEMI method may give slightly longer piles than the
factor’ – usually applied as a strength factor in geotechnical factored LEA.
engineering analysis of laterally loaded piles and retaining (c) The effect of pore water pressures on the conservatism or
walls – in a plasticity-based design (see, e.g. Baker and otherwise of the OLEMI approach relative to the
Heyman, 1969). It is the authors’ opinion that for simple factored effective stress LEA is negligible.
embedded retaining walls and laterally loaded piles, the partial (d) Undrained LEA, which for transient and short-term
factors specified in Eurocode 7 combination 2 as interpreted loading in clay soils having relatively low angles of
through the UK National Annex were intended to give results effective shearing resistance is likely to be more
broadly compatible with earlier approaches, whose sufficiency appropriate than effective stress analysis, gives shorter
has been demonstrated by many decades of experience of pile lengths than the OLEMI method for soils having
satisfactory structural performance in both stability and servi- undrained shear strengths greater than 78 kPa for the
ceability. By comparing the results of ULS calculations to the loads associated with the STC, and greater than 33 kPa
empirical OLEMI approach, the work described in this paper for the loads associated with the XL-TTC.
then justifies the use of Clause 2.4.8(4) for the design of OLE (e) The apparent overdesign of the GWEP foundations
foundations. appears to have arisen largely because of an attempt to
carry out an explicit SLS calculation using over-
6. Conclusions conservative soil stiffnesses, and/or carrying out limit
In level or sloping ground, factored LEAs in terms of total equilibrium ULS calculations that made no allowance for
stresses, and in terms of effective stresses with zero or hydro- three-dimensional effects.
static pore pressures, give results that are broadly comparable (f ) The satisfactory performance of a large number of
with the OLEMI method in terms of the required pile embed- OLEMI-designed foundations provides further evidence
ment depth, for a variety of soil strengths. that a specific SLS check for this type of relatively simple
structure is not required.
(a) The fact that the limit equilibrium ULS analyses give (g) The comparative calculations should give designers the
broadly similar results and are sometimes more confidence to use the OLEMI method, or LEA with the
16
Table 11. Other key terms and symbols used in the paper
Term Definition Symbol
Effective angle of shearing Apparent frictional strength of the soil, defining the ϕ0
resistance, effective Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope in effective stress
angle of friction terms, (τ/σ0 )max = tanϕ0 ; ϕ0 might be defined either at
the peak stress ratio ϕ0peak, or at the critical state, ϕ0crit.
The strength that needs to be mobilised to maintain a
given equilibrium stress state is denoted ϕ0mob
Effective soil unit weight Weight of a unit volume of soil, adjusted for pore water γ* = (γ − du/dz) at depth z, where u is the pore water
pressure (buoyancy) effects, defined such that the pressure. UIC-ORE (1957) uses the symbol Δ
vertical effective stress at depth z = γ*z – that is (although it assumes that the soil is not
γ* = (γ − du/dz) at depth z, where u is the pore water waterlogged, so that u = 0, and there is some
pressure ambiguity about the dimensions of Δ), and Fleming
et al. (1994) use γ0
partial factors specified in Eurocode 7. This should result Table 12. Summary of loading and geometrical parameters and
in shorter pile lengths that will perform adequately, symbols used
helping to reduce electrification costs back towards Parameter Symbol
historic levels.
Resultant lateral load (wind plus or minus component of H
wire tension)
Acknowledgements Height of action of resultant lateral load above ground y
The work described in this paper was funded and carried out level
under the Network Rail – University of Southampton Weight of mast WM
Strategic Partnership in Future Infrastructure Systems. The Weight of foundation WF
Weight of boom and OLE supported w
authors are grateful to colleagues including Dr Anthony Blake,
Horizontal distance of line of action of w from centre of x
Dr Tony Lock and Rob Stacey for their discussions, insights foundation
and help with various parts of the paper, and to Dr Joel Disturbed or unconsolidated depth of soil h0
Smethurst for carrying out the ALP analyses. Ultimate moment of resistance at ground level Mult
Design moment at ground level MGL
Design moment at the stanchion base MSB
Appendix Total depth of foundation h
Foundation diameter d
A1.1 Symbols and nomenclature
The key geometrical parameters and symbols used in the source
documents for each method are summarised in Table 10. foundations (parallelepiped) and augured tubular steel pile
Symbols given in square brackets [ ] do not feature in the source foundations are provided in drawing MS/B80/L00/A3. These
document but are shown for completeness and/or overall clarity. tables provide the foundation lengths in increments of 0·1 m
and the corresponding level ground moment based on a non-
Other key terms and symbols are defined in Tables 11 and 12. effective near-surface depth h′ = 0·3 m and a soil effective unit
weight γ* = 15 kN/m3. For grabbed side-bearing foundations a
A1.2 OLEMI and allocation design methodology towards-track moment – that is level terrain factor K = 1·3 – is
It was stated in the main text that the OLEMI method gives used to calculate the foundation ‘strength depth’ (D). For the
foundations that are approximately 10 to 20% longer than tubular steel pile foundations, an away-from-track moment
those determined using the UIC-ORE design method as a (i.e. level terrain factor K = 1) is used, resulting in increased
result of simply neglecting the vertical loads (Nr in foundation ‘strength depths’ for a given level ground moment.
Equations 2 and 4). All other corrections for topographical This apparent discrepancy accommodates the likely ground
features and foundation type are the same in both methods. disturbance in pre-auguring the ground to facilitate tubular
steel pile (CHS) installation. ‘Augured’ is a term used only in
The updated Network Rail specification for the design and the title of drawing MS/B98/K08/A3 (Table 13).
installation of overhead line foundations (NR/L2/CIV/074
(Network Rail, 2017)) uses the UK Master Series (Network To facilitate foundation allocation according to in-service foun-
Rail, 2015c) foundation allocation method derived from dation type, terrain condition and loading direction, two allo-
OLEMI (i.e. no vertical load is considered). cation schedules for grabbed and hand excavated (parallelepiped)
and augured side-bearing (tubular steel) foundations are
A series of ‘strength depth’ tables for allocating concrete provided in drawings MS/B98/K05/A3 and MS/B98/K08/A3,
‘grabbed’ (i.e. excavated and cast-in-place) side-bearing respectively. These allocation schedules introduce a modification
17
Table 13. Supporting drawings NR/L2/CIV/074

Drg no. Title Purpose
MS/B98/K05/A3 Foundation allocation schedule: grabbed and To determine topographical ‘location conditions’ that will affect moment
hand-excavated side-bearing foundations capacity and design depth
MS/B98/K08/A3 Foundation allocation schedule: augured side- To determine topographical ‘location conditions’ that will affect moment
bearing foundations capacity and design depth
MS/B80/K73/A3 900 mm dia. augured side-bearing foundation 800 mm dia. augured concrete foundations
MS/B80/L00/A3 Strength depth table for different OLE Strength depth tables for (a) 540 580 mm and 800 800 mm concrete
foundation types – based on ORE-UIC grabbed side-bearing foundations; (b) 610 and 762 mm dia. tubular
method steel piles
MS/B98/K04/A4 Allocation method of bearing foundations Details allocation method. Defines minimum overturning moment at
ground level.
Table 14. Foundation allocation schedule for grabbed and side-bearing foundations
Direction of Factor Acceptable
Location moment F conditions Corrections Sketch
Side of cutting Uphill 1·37 All with corrections Add 0·9 to h TG

Ditch
Downhill 1·53
Side of embankment Uphill 1·37 All with corrections Add 0·9 to h TG
Ditch
Downhill 1·53
Top of cutting Uphill 1·37 0·9 ≤ a ≤ h If a < 0·9: Add (0·9 − a) to h a
TG
If a > h: regard as level ground
Downhill 1·53 0·9 ≤ a ≤ 0·7h If a < 0·9: Add (0·9 − a) to h
If a> 0·7h: regard as level ground
Top of embankment Uphill 1·37 0·9 ≤ a ≤ h If a < 0·9: Add (0·9 − a) to h a
TG
If a > 0·7h: regard as level ground
Level ground Away from track 1·3 a≥h If a < h: regard as side of a TG
Ditch
embankment
Towards track 1·0 a ≥ 0·7h If a < 0·7H: regard as side of
embankment
Base of embankment Uphill 1·0 a ≥ 0·7h If a < 0·7H: regard as side of a
TG
embankment
Ditch
Downhill 1·3 a≥h If a < h: regard as side of
embankment
Base of cutting Uphill 1·3 a ≥ 0·9 If a < 0·9: Add (0·9 − a) to h a
TG
slope > 20° Downhill 1·0 a ≥ 0·9 If a < 0·9: Add (0·9 − a) to h >20°
Ditch
Base of cutting Uphill 0·867 a ≥ 0·7h If a < 0·7h: regard as base of a

TG
slope ≤ 20° cutting > 20° ≤20°
Ditch
Downhill 0·722 a≥h If a < h: regard as base of
cutting > 20°
Note: TG is the lowest ground level in contact with foundation. All units of correction to a and h are in metres
factor F that converts the level ground moment to an equivalent Table 16 shows that the application of the factor F values
level ground moment that reflects the actual direction of provided in Table 14 (MS/B98/K05/A3: grabbed) converts
loading and terrain type. This equivalent level ground the across-track level ground moment to the appropriate
moment and its corresponding foundation ‘strength depth’ is ORE K factor for each terrain type and loading direction as
derived from the appropriate table in drawing MS/B80/L00/A3. presented in Table 2. The factor F values provided in Table 15
The additional corrections to foundation length based on (MS/B98/K08/A3: augured) are identical, but because the
slope angle, direction of loading, proximity to topographical ‘strength depth’ table in MS/B80/L00/A3 has been derived
features related to foundation type are also depicted in using a K = 1 (away-from-track moment), the equivalent ORE
MS/B98/K05/A3 and MS/B98/K08/A3 and are in accordance K factor is reduced, resulting in foundation lengths approxi-
with UIC-ORE rules. These are replicated in Tables 14 and 15, mately 17% and 23% longer for 0·610 m and 0·762 m CHS
respectively. foundations, respectively.
18
Table 15. Foundation allocation schedule augured side-bearing foundations

Direction of Factor Acceptable
Location moment F conditions Corrections Sketch
Side of cutting Uphill 1·37 All with corrections Add 0·6 to h TG

Ditch
Downhill 1·53
Side of embankment Uphill 1·37 All with corrections Add 0·6 to h TG
Ditch
Downhill 1·53
Top of cutting Uphill 1·37 0·9 ≤ a ≤ h If a < 0·6: Add (0·6 − a) to h a
TG
Top of embankment Uphill 1·37 0·9 ≤ a ≤ h If a < 0·6: Add (0·6 − a) to h a TG
Level ground Away from track 1·3 a≥h If a < h: regard as side of a
TG
Ditch
embankment
Towards track 1·0 a ≥ 0·7h If a < 0·7H: regard as side of
embankment
Base of embankment Uphill 1·0 a ≥ 0·7h If a < 0·7H: regard as side of a
TG
embankment
Ditch
Downhill 1·3 a≥h If a < h: regard as side of
embankment
Base of cutting Uphill 1·3 a ≥ 0·9 If a < 0·6: Add (0·6 − a) to h a
TG
slope > 20° Downhill 1·0 a ≥ 0·9 If a < 0·6: Add (0·6 − a) to h >20°
Ditch
Base of cutting Uphill 0·867 a ≥ 0·7h If a < 0·7h: regard as base of a

TG
slope ≤ 20° cutting > 20° ≤20°
Ditch
Downhill 0·722 a≥h If a < h: regard as base of
cutting > 20°
Note: TG is the lowest ground level in contact with foundation. All units of correction to a and h are in metres
Drawing MS/B98/K04/A3 provides minimum overturning Table 16. Factor F and equivalent ORE K factor (refer to Table 2)
moments for STC and TTC structures. These have been ORE K factors
derived from the capacity of the OLE stanchion – the ‘3/4
mast strength’. These values are currently the subject of Factor F Grabbed Augured
further investigation. 1·53 1·3/1·53 = 0·85 1/1·53 = 0·65
1·37 1·3/1·37 = 0·85 1/1·37 = 0·73
1·3 1·3/1·3 = 1 1/1·3 = 0·77
A1.3 Use of the lateral pile/soil interaction 1·0 1·3/1 = 1·3 1/1 = 1
program ALP to illustrate the effect of 0·867 1·3/0·867 = 1·5 1/0·867 = 1·15
0·722 1·3/0·722 = 1·8 1/0·722 = 1·38
the assumed soil stiffness on calculated wire
height deflections
To investigate the influence of foundation pile length and
assumed soil stiffness on this potential SLS, the deflection current analyses, the former approach was adopted. Analyses
at wire height was estimated using the Oasys program ALP are very quick to undertake as only two stiffness matrices are
(analysis of laterally loaded piles). developed, representing the pile in bending and the soil
stiffness.
ALP uses rudimentary soil–structure interaction to calculate
the deflected pile shape (lateral displacement and rotation), In the current analyses, soil stiffnesses were taken as integer
shear forces and bending moments and lateral soil pressures, in multiples (1, 2 and 4) of the value of 15 MPa used by
response to the application of loads or the imposition of soil Krechowiecki-Shaw and Alobaidi (2015).
displacements. The soil is represented by non-linear springs
and the pile as elastic beam elements. The program is limited The lateral displacement at contact wire height (assumed to be
to laterally loaded piles in level ground. Load–deflection 5·2 m above ground level) was determined by multiplying the
behaviour is modelled either by assuming elastic–plastic soil calculated rotation of the top of the pile by the distance from
behaviour or by specifying load–deflection (P–y) curves: in the the effective top of the pile to the contact wire (5·5 m), and
19
adding this to the calculated lateral displacement of the Nimityongskul N, Kawamata Y, Rayamajhi D and Ashford SA (2018) Full
effective top of the pile. scale tests on effects of slope on lateral capacity of piles installed
in cohesive ground. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 144(1): 04017103.
REFERENCES Network Rail (2004) Instruction for the Design of Overhead Line
AMEC SPIE Rail (2000) Channel Tunnel Rail Link; Calculation Structures. Network Rail, London, UK, NR/SP/ELP/27215.
Note for Cylindrical Foundation, Document No. 570-CM-SAMSP- Network Rail (2015a) Network Rail’s UK Masters Series: Strength
11202-AB, Revision AB, July 2000. AMEC SPIE Rail, Depth Table for Different OLE Foundation Types – Based on
Croydon, UK. ORE-UIC Method, June 2015. Network Rail, London, UK,
Baker JF and Heyman J (1969) Plastic Design of Frames: 1. MS/B80/L00/A3.
Fundamentals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Network Rail (2015b) Wind Loading of OLE Structures. Network Rail,
Barton YO (1982) Laterally Loaded Model Piles in Sand. London, UK, NR/L2/CIV/072.
PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Network Rail (2015c) Design of Overhead Line Structures. Network
BBPCL (Balfour Beatty Power Construction Ltd) (1990) Foundation Design Rail, London, UK, NR/L2/CIV/073.
Manual, Issue 1, 15 May 1990. BBPCL, London, UK. See https:// Network Rail (2017) Design and Installation of Overhead Line
doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/D1117 (accessed 02/12/2019). Foundations. Network Rail, London, UK, NR/L2/CIV/074.
Bowles JE (1996) Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th edn. Oasys (Oasys Ltd) (2017) ALP 19.3 Help Guide. Oasys, London, UK.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA. Pan D (2013) Numerical Modelling of Rows of Discrete Piles Used to
Brinch Hansen J (1961) A Revised and Extended Formula for Bearing Stabilise Landslides Under Long-Term Conditions in Clays.
Capacity. Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark, PhD dissertation, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Bulletin No. 12. Pan D, Smethurst JA and Powrie W (2012) Limiting pressure on a
Broms BB (1964a) Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. laterally loaded pile in frictional soil. Géotechnique Letters 2(2):
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 90(SM2): 55–60, https://doi.org/10.1680/geolett.12.00007.
27–63. Powrie W (2014) Soil Mechanics: Concepts and Applications, 3rd edn.
Broms BB (1964b) Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils. Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 90(SM3): Ramelot C and van Deperre L (1950) Les foundations de Pylons
123–156. Electriques: Leur Resistance au reveresement, leur stabilite,
BSI (2013) Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design Part 1: General Rules. BE leur calcul etude experimentale. Comptes Rendus des Recherches
EN 1997-1: 2004+A1:2013. BSI, London, UK. de la Recherche Scientifique dans l’Industrie et Agriculture 2
Buro Happold (Buro Happold Engineering) (2015a) NR-Working Groups (in French).
for Electrification Standards Typical Loading for GW Series 1 Randolph MF and Houlsby GT (1984) The limiting pressure on a circular
TTC, 033622-BH (006/010), January/February 2015. Buro pile loaded laterally in cohesive soil. Géotechnique 34(4): 613–623,
Happold. See https://doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/D1117 (accessed https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1984.34.4.613.
02/12/2019). RIA (Railway Industry Association) (2019) Electrification Cost Challenge.
Buro Happold (2015b) Series 1 Standard STC and TTC rev02, 033677, RIA, London, UK. See https://www.riagb.org.uk/RIA/
September 2015. Buro Happold. See https://doi.org/10.5258/ Newsroom/Stories/Electrification_Cost_Challenge_Report.aspx
SOTON/D1117 (accessed 02/12/2019). and https://doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/D1117 (accessed 02/12/2019).
Buro Happold (2015c) Series 1 Critical Loading States for XL-TTC Sulzberger G (1945) Die fundamente der freileitunstrag werke und ihre
Structures, 003677-BHP-DN-XL-TTC-001, October 2015. berechnung (the foundations of overhead line supports and their
Buro Happold. See https://doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/D1117 calculation). Bulletin SEV 36(1945): 289–307 (in German).
(accessed 02/12/2019). UIC-ORE (International Union of Railways – Office for Research and
Duley A (2019) Soil Parameters for Modelling Critical Velocity Effects Experiments) (1957) Calculation of Catenary Masts and
of Railways. University of Southampton PhD dissertation, June, Foundations, Interim Report No. 1. International Union of
2019, Southampton, UK. Railways Office for Research and Experiments, Utrecht,
Fleming WGK, Weltman AJ, Randolph MF and Elson WK (1994) the Netherlands.
Piling Engineering, 2nd edn. Blackie and Son, Bishopbriggs, UK.
Fleming WGK, Weltman AJ, Randolph MF and Elson WK (2009) Piling
Engineering, 3rd edn. Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Georgiadis K and Georgiadis M (2010) Undrained lateral pile response
in sloping ground. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 136(11): 1489–1500.
Kanagasabai S, Smethurst JA and Powrie W (2011) Three-dimensional
How can you contribute?
numerical modelling of discrete piles used to stabilize landfills.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48: 1393–1411, https://doi.org/
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
10.1139/T11-046. editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
Krechowiecki-Shaw CJ and Alobaidi IM (2015) An interaction forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
chart design method for Eurocode compliant railway appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
electrification mast foundations. Construction and Building
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Materials 92: 104–110.
Mootoosamy VKS, Wiles G and Holder S (2015) Network Rail’s Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from the
In-Service Experience of the ORE Method, 133956-IED-REP- civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
EOH-000222, 12 June 2015. See https://doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/
Information about how to submit your paper online
D1117 (accessed 02/12/2019).
NAO (National Audit Office) (2016) Modernising the Great Western is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
Railway. Department for Transport and Network Rail, London, where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
UK, Report no. HC 781.
20
View publication stats

OLE Mast Foundation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OLE Mast Foundation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OLE Mast Foundation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the challenges with designing railway overhead line equipment mast foundations?

What are some of the challenges with designing railway overhead line equipment mast foundations?

How do different design methods compare in terms of calculating pile lengths?

How do different design methods compare in terms of calculating pile lengths?

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The design of railway overhead line equipment (OLE) mast foundations

Article in Geotechnical Engineering · September 2019

William Powrie David Richards

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rail Overhead Line Equipment foundation design View project

Civil engineering education View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The design of railway overhead line

Notation Nq bearing capacity factor

10·50 Contact 1 Contact 2

7·63 0·23 0·23

2·80 1·435 1·965

l The most onerous characteristic loads, expressed as moment at

STC Vertical: kN 10·47 — —

If the foundation is a cylindrical block of diameter d,

where Mult in decaNewton-metres (daNm) is the ultimate

& were for concrete foundations up to 3 m long

D, foundation depth; L, foundation length on plan

2.6 Analysis based on limiting lateral stresses

As with the effective stress analysis z

& the pile is subject to an equivalent horizontal load He 3d

Permanent Unfavourable γG 1·35 1·0

(a) Across track

(b) Away from track

5·0 φ' = 32·5° 5·5 OLEMI φ' = 20° φ' = 45°

6·5 OLEMI φ' = 20°

9·0 (including a factor of 1·4 on the undrained shear strength of

7·0 φ' = 45°

Pile lengths: m cu = 30 kPa cu = 60 kPa cu = 120 kPa OLEMI pile lengths: m

STC 3·96 3·13 2·56 2·83

Table 8. Input parameters and assumptions for ALP analyses

8 (1) (2)(3) (4)

Table 9. Summary of calculated wire height deflections

Equivalent lateral load H [H ] T

Table 13. Supporting drawings NR/L2/CIV/074

Side of cutting Uphill 1·37 All with corrections Add 0·9 to h TG

Base of cutting Uphill 0·867 a ≥ 0·7h If a < 0·7h: regard as base of a

Table 15. Foundation allocation schedule augured side-bearing foundations

Side of cutting Uphill 1·37 All with corrections Add 0·6 to h TG

Base of cutting Uphill 0·867 a ≥ 0·7h If a < 0·7h: regard as base of a

You might also like