Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Pile Embedment - Broms method vs IBC method

Status
Not open for further replies.

buck1017

Structural
Jun 8, 2010
9
0
0
US
I have been doing some work with a telecom group and I have been asked to review embedment calcs for a light pole with an antenna on top. Normally for something like this, I use the module built into Tekla TEDDS for "flagpole embedment" which uses the IBC method. The designer who sent me his calc used the Broms method from AASHTO's standard on luminaire design. I checked the design using both methods and similar soil parameters. The required embedment using Broms was 8.5 feet, the IBC method was 20 feet. I have been trying to figure out why there is such a discrepancy. Additionally, the pole is 50 feet tall. A good rule of thumb that I've used in the past is to embed the pole 1/3 the height, which would be about 17 feet. Is the IBC method and therefore the rule of thumb incredibly conservative? Or is the Broms method too simplistic to be accurate?
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Not having done the sums, but 8.5' for a 50' pole seems a tad light... unless you have really good soil. My SMath calc sheet has 4 or 5 different methods and I select the one that seems to be most appropriate.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik
 
That said, I do consider Brom's method a higher tier analysis than IBC or h/3 rule of thumb method. Especially if your soil data is reasonable.

----
just call me Lo.
 
buck1017 said:
...embedment calcs for a light pole with an antenna on top.

Electric utility poles are embedded 10% of pole length plus 2 feet... seven feet for a 50' pole. This includes utility poles with (heavy) transformers on top. Depth of 8.5' seems reasonable for a free-standing pole.

 
Double check if either method is assuming restraint at the ground level. It is also common practice to disregard the top few feet from the embedment depth (usually disregard depth equal to foundation diameter).
 
Thanks SRE...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top