Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Fleet Strategy
TL FOUNDATIONS
© Transpower New Zealand Limited 2013. All rights reserved.
TL Foundations Fleet Strategy
TP.FL 01.02
Issue 1
October 2013
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF STRATEGIES .............................................................................................................. 3
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Scope .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Stakeholders ......................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Strategic Alignment ............................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Document Structure .............................................................................................................. 6
2 ASSET FLEET .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Asset Statistics ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Asset Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Asset Performance .............................................................................................................. 17
3 OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................... 20
3.1 Safety .................................................................................................................................. 20
3.2 Service Performance ........................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Cost Performance ............................................................................................................... 21
3.4 New Zealand Communities ................................................................................................. 21
3.5 Asset Management Capability ............................................................................................ 21
4 STRATEGIES.......................................................................................................................... 24
4.1 Planning .............................................................................................................................. 24
4.2 Delivery ............................................................................................................................... 34
4.3 Operations ........................................................................................................................... 35
4.4 Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ 37
4.5 Disposal and Divestment .................................................................................................... 42
4.6 Capability............................................................................................................................. 42
4.7 Summary of RCP2 Fleet Strategies .................................................................................... 45
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................... 47
A GRILLAGE EXAMPLES .......................................................................................................... 48
B FOUNDATION CONDITION CODES ..................................................................................... 50
C GRILLAGE ENCASEMENT MODELLING .............................................................................. 53
TL FOUNDATIONS
© Transpower New Zealand Limited 2013. All rights reserved.
TL Foundations Fleet Strategy
TP.FL 01.02
Issue 1
October 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The condition and performance of tower and pole foundations is essential to the structural
integrity of transmission lines, and to ensuring reliability of supply to customers, and
maintaining public safety.
Our asset management approach for foundations seeks to maintain them in perpetuity, at
least lifecycle cost, and ensure the integrity and reliability of tower structures and the
conductors they support. We have long term programmes of work in progress to encase
deteriorated grillage foundations and maintain the asset health of foundation components.
Foundation Strategies
The main strategy for the foundations asset fleet is the condition-based encasement of
deteriorated steel grillage foundations. Inspections carried out to date show that some of
our grillage foundations have deteriorated to the point where refurbishment is needed to
Improvements
In our planning for the RCP2 period, we have made a number of improvements to the asset
management of foundations, including:
improved modelling of condition degradation
introduction of Asset Health Indices (AHI) to allow better comparison of asset
condition across fleets
using asset criticality as an important factor in planning foundation asset works – in
particular refurbishments
planning decisions that consider the whole-of-life cost of foundation assets, covering
Planning, Delivery, Operations, Maintenance and Disposal, as well as their impacts
on other assets, such as towers and poles
using updated and more detailed building blocks for cost estimates.
For the grillage fleet, our approach remains unchanged from the RCP1 period.
Further improvements will include:
refinement of condition assessment techniques and asset health models
refinement of the asset criticality framework.
SUMMARY OF STRATEGIES
The following summaries include the main strategies and their respective costs during the
RCP2 period (2015/16–2019/20).
Capital Expenditure
Further detail on the above RCP2 strategies and discussion of the remaining strategies can
be found in chapter 4.
1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 introduces the purpose, scope, stakeholders, and strategic alignment of the
foundations fleet strategy.
1.1 Purpose
We plan, build, maintain and operate New Zealand’s high-voltage electricity transmission
network (‘Grid’) including the foundations that support conductor-bearing structures
(towers and poles).
The purpose of this strategy is to describe our approach to lifecycle management of our
transmission tower and large pole foundation assets on the Grid. This includes objectives for
future performance and strategies being adopted to achieve these objectives. The strategy
sets the high-level direction for fleet asset management activities across the lifecycle of the
fleet. These activities include Planning, Delivery, Operations, and Maintenance.
This document has been developed based on good practice guidance from internationally
recognised sources, including BSI PAS 55:2008.
1.2 Scope
The scope of the strategy includes the foundations of towers and non-direct buried poles,
and limited to:
grillage foundations (direct buried grid of steel)
concrete foundations with cast-in tower legs
concrete foundations with cast-in anchor bolts and tower/pole baseplates
large piled foundation structures (typically at river crossings and estuaries)
driven piles and wailings used for mounting poles in riverbeds.
1.3 Stakeholders
Correct operation and maintenance of foundations is essential for the safe and reliable
transport of electricity from generators to customers and distribution networks across public
and private land. Key stakeholders include:
landowners
relevant Transpower Groups (Grid Development, Performance and Projects)
regulatory bodies: Commerce Commission, Electricity Authority, local and regional
Councils, and the Environmental Protection Authority
Department of Conservation
service providers
customers, including distribution network businesses and generators.
Lifecycle Strategies
Foundations Strategy
Foundations Plan
Figure 1: Position of this Strategy within the Transpower Asset Management Hierarchy
2 ASSET FLEET
Chapter 2 describes the asset fleet with a focus on:
asset statistics – including population, diversity, age profile, and spares
asset characteristics – including safety and environmental considerations, asset
criticality, asset condition, asset health, maintenance requirements and interaction
with other assets
asset performance – including reliability, safety and environmental and
identification of risks and issues.
Foundations play an important role on the Grid by supporting transmission line towers and
poles, which in turn support conductors.
More than half of all tower foundations are original buried steel grillage foundations that are
subject to corrosion. This results in an increased risk of foundation and subsequent tower
failure. It is important to maintain these in an appropriate condition through timely
maintenance and refurbishment.
Steel Grillage Grillages that have not yet been refurbished 12,350
Concrete over Steel Grillage Refurbished grillage foundations (by encasement in concrete) 1,667
Poles
Total 24,913
Table 1: Foundation Types and Populations as at 30 June 2013
The type of foundation used has varied with time. Buried steel grillage foundations are the
oldest type of tower foundation on the Grid and comprise more than half of all tower
foundations. They were the preferred foundation type until the late 1960s when concrete
foundations were introduced.
Of the concrete foundations, some 6,500 towers have baseplate and anchor bolt
connections. This type of foundation and connection was installed between the mid-1960s
and the late 1970s. Since then, essentially all foundations have been constructed with a
concrete pile/plug and cast-in stub leg. The proportion of concrete foundations will increase
over time as new lines are constructed, lines are divested or decommissioned and grillages
are encased with concrete. Figure 2 depicts the diversity of the asset fleet.
FOUNDATIONS- DIVERSITY
GRILLAGE (50%)
CONCRETE OVER GRILLAGE (7%)
CONCRETE PLUG, BORED OR DUG (40%)
OTHER TOWER FOUNDATIONS (3%)
POLE FOUNDATION (1%)
1,000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ≥80
AGE (YEARS)
Environmental
There is potential for significant environmental impacts when constructing or removing
foundations, particularly when working in sensitive areas such as riverbeds.
Environmental issues are mitigated by working closely with the relevant regulatory bodies
and landowners and by ensuring compliance with the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA
1991).
FOUNDATIONS -
NETWORK CRITICALITY
LOW (45%)
MEDIUM (39%)
HIGH (16%)
Approximately half of the foundation asset fleet are classified as medium impact or high
impact with respect to network criticality. The reliability and performance of these assets
need to be managed carefully to minimise failure risks.
We are still at a relatively early stage in the development and application of safety criticality,
and will continue to refine and develop this throughout RCP2.
Subsections 2.2.4 and 4.1.2 discuss how criticality is taken into account, in combination with
asset health to determine prioritised replacement programmes.
Grillage foundations
Many towers with buried steel grillage foundations are now showing corrosion on tower legs
and bracing near the ground line. Having severely rusting foundations on the network is a
major risk that is compounded by the fact that they cannot be readily assessed for condition.
Despite numerous national and international trials, no reliable non-intrusive method has
been found to accurately predict which towers have corroded grillages. Age, original
galvanising quality, soil type and moisture content are all known to influence the grillage
condition.
The only reliable method of determining the condition of the buried part of the foundation
condition is to dig and visually inspect. Excavation and inspection (see Figure 5) is relatively
FOUNDATIONS - CONDITION
GRILLAGE CONCRETE OVER GRILLAGE
CONCRETE PLUG, BORED OR DUG OTHER
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100
CONDITION ASSESSMENT (CA) SCORE
1
Figure 6: Foundations – Asset Condition
Figure 6 shows the distribution of condition assessment codes for foundations. The majority
of the fleet has a condition assessment score of above 40 although approximately 1,400 (or
11%) of grillage foundations are at or below condition assessment 30.
1
Using ground-line condition as a proxy for grillage foundations.
2,000
1,000
0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
CA SCORE
Increasing Criticality
2
Literature on in-ground corrosion of galvanised steel suggests the corrosion rate is roughly linear while galvanising is
still there, but may actually decrease once corrosion starts. The more replacements we do, the better our
understanding in this area will be.
Preventive maintenance
Line patrols are generally performed once a year on every transmission line asset. The main
purpose of the patrols is to identify defects and sites with very high safety criticality that
may then be patrolled more frequently. A ground-based patrol visits each structure/span
and walks the conductor line, if possible, to visually identify any defects. A patrol report
identifies defects required to be rectified. Repair jobs are raised in the Maintenance
Management System and the maintenance contractors are responsible for carrying out this
work.
As discussed in 2.2.3, condition assessments are carried out on a cyclic basis and entail a
detailed inspection of the structure and span. The assessment produces a condition
assessment score for various components and a defect list.
Corrective maintenance
Typical maintenance activities for foundations include removing soil and vegetation from the
top of concrete foundations and installing protection works such as rip rap in rivers.
The most common fault response and repair work required for foundations relate to
foundation failures due to land subsidence or rapid soil erosion. Contributing factors include:
severely damaged foundations
geotechnical risks due to slips, scouring and subsidence
third party excavation or construction around tower foundations.
Each year a number of sites require stabilising work and repairs to avoid failure. In extreme
cases a structure may be relocated.
2.3.1 Reliability
Achieving an appropriate level of reliability for our asset fleets is a key objective as it directly
affects the experience of our customers. Reliability is measured primarily by the frequency
and length of outages.
While foundation failures due to extreme climatic loading, land movement and washout do
occur, with established modern design practices the probability of foundation failure is low.
Since 1963 there have been 12 foundation failures. Five failures were caused by land
movement or river scour; the remaining seven were due to high wind events pulling the
foundations from the ground. Since 2005, only one tower foundation failure has occurred
and was due to river washout. In this instance, conductors were transferred to a temporary
structure prior to the foundation (and tower) failure.
Age profiles
Grillage foundations are the oldest type of foundation, with the bulk of the fleet now aged
between 45 and 90. Approximately 10% of grillages and foundation components are now
corroded to the point of requiring replacement or refurbishment. Age-based deterioration is
the major driver of the work programme related to this asset fleet. The risks associated with
foundation corrosion include rapidly increasing costs to maintain if left too late and reduced
structural strength that could lead to foundation and tower failure.
Undersized foundations
Studies have revealed that concrete foundations built before 1983 were usually designed
based on very limited soil testing and with assumptions made about soil properties, leading
to undersized foundations occasionally being installed. Recent studies, including full-scale
foundation testing, suggest that under-strength foundations still exist in some cases.
Structures with concrete pile foundations built before 1983 continue to be investigated, with
priority given to sites whose failure would pose significant risk to people, property or the
Grid.
3
Details can be found in the Conductors and Insulators fleet strategy.
3 OBJECTIVES
Chapter 3 sets out asset management objectives for transmission line foundations. As
described in section 1.4, these objectives have been aligned with the corporate objectives,
and higher-level asset management objectives and targets as set out in the Asset
Management Strategy.
Our overarching vision for our foundations fleet is to maintain them in perpetuity, at least
lifecycle cost, and to ensure the integrity and reliability of tower structures and the
conductors they support. Further objectives in the following areas have been defined:
Safety
Service performance
Cost performance
New Zealand communities
Asset management capability.
These objectives are set out below. Chapter 4 discusses the strategies to achieve them.
3.1 Safety
We are committed to becoming a leader in safety by achieving injury-free workplaces for our
employees and to mitigate risks to the general public. Safety is a fundamental organisational
value and we consider that all incidents are preventable.
Recognising the reduced level of control we have in relation to public safety, we will take all
practicable steps to ensure transmission line assets do not present a risk of serious harm to
any member of the public or significant damage to property.
- All foundation works to be carried out by service providers that are suitably qualified
and competent for the specific tasks required.
- Increase and then maintain the in-house skill base with regard to asset management
principles and application.
4 STRATEGIES
Chapter 4 sets out the fleet specific strategies used to manage the foundations asset fleet.
These strategies provide medium-term to long-term guidance and direction for asset
management decisions and will support the achievement of the objectives in chapter 3. The
strategies are aligned with our lifecycle strategies below and the chapter has been drafted to
be read in conjunction with them.
Planning Lifecycle Strategy
Delivery Lifecycle Strategy
Operations Lifecycle Strategy
Maintenance Lifecycle Strategy
Disposal Lifecycle Strategy
This chapter also discusses capability related strategies which cover asset knowledge,
training and competence.
Scope of strategies
The strategies focus on expenditure that is planned to occur over the RCP2 period (2015–
2020), but also include expenditure from 1 July 2013 to the beginning of the RCP2 period
and some expenditure after the RCP2 period where relevant. Capital expenditure planned
for the period is covered by the strategies in section 4.1, while operating expenditure is
mainly covered by section 4.4. The majority of capital expenditure consists of grillage
refurbishment, which is described in subsection 4.1.2.
4.1 Planning
This section describes our strategies relating to the planning lifecycle phase of the
foundations fleet and identifies where and how these strategies support the objectives for
the overall fleet.
Planning activities
Planning activities are primarily concerned with identifying the need to make capital
investments in the asset fleet. The main types of investment considered in this strategy are
enhancement and development, and replacement and refurbishment works.
We support our planning activities through a number of processes, including:
IWP
cost estimation.
The planning lifecycle strategies for these processes are described in the subsections below.
System growth projects principally include new greenfield lines or the uprating of existing
lines, which may require stronger structures and foundations. As part of uprating projects,
foundations that do not comply with current design standards are strengthened, to increase
reliability. These projects drive the need to invest in foundations. The timing and cost of
works will be driven by the relevant conductor works.
In the next few years, we will install a number of new tower structures and their associated
foundations, and strengthen other foundations as part of specific enhancement projects.
From a planning perspective, the cost for such foundation work is currently included in the
relevant conductor projects. Following completion of the project, the costs will be allocated
out to the relevant foundation asset. Any asset management related costs following their
initial installation will be managed through the foundations portfolio.4
4
For more details, see the Conductors and Insulators fleet strategy.
Between 1992 and 2008, over 600 grillage foundations were refurbished by removing, re-
galvanising and replacing them. Since then, concrete encasement of the tower legs has
become the preferred refurbishment option. Concrete encasement designs have many
advantages over buried steel, including lower cost, less risk to the structure during
installation, increased performance and reduced requirements for future condition
assessment. Most significantly, they bring the steel interface above ground, simplifying
maintenance and condition assessment requirements, and so reducing risk.
In some locations it may be impractical to transport concrete to site. In these instances, the
existing grillage should be refurbished or a new grillage installed. The proportion of grillage
replacements is predicted to be small (under 10%) compared to the number of concrete
encasements.
Alternative approaches for grillage refurbishments have been assessed. Specifically, those
options that have been discounted include
Excavate and remove grillages for re-galvanising, and put back in the ground (in
another location to allow a rolling programme). Cost is approximately 1.4 times that
of encasement,5 there is no scope for strengthening, and we will still be left with
buried steel.
Replace with a new grillage designed specifically for the given location – the cost is
approximately 1.6 times the cost of encasement and we will still be left with buried
steel.
5
For more details on encasement costs, see the cost section of the Grillage Refurbishments Programme strategy.
Background
Grillage foundations are simply galvanised steel members buried underground. Over 12,000
towers on the network still have grillage foundations — 50% of the foundation fleet. The
average grillage age is 57 years, with some now almost aged 90. Investigations have found
that many of these buried steel members are severely corroded. Yet grillages cannot be
readily condition assessed because they are buried up to 3m below ground. The actual
condition of the grillage fleet for the majority of towers is therefore unknown. This poses a
significant risk to the network. Since the mid-2000s, 1,700 grillages have been ‘converted’ to
concrete over grillage foundations by encasing them in concrete.
6
For the first objective the minimum required numbers are (1400 + 880)/7 years = 326/year, while for the second
objective the minimum required numbers are (3000 + 4000)/20 year = 350/year
GRILLAGES AT OR BELOW CA 40
CA 31-40 CA 0-30
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20
7
Figure 11: Grillage Asset Health Forecast
Figure 12 shows the effect of the programme on foundation asset health contrasted with
the situation if the grillage encasement programme is not undertaken.
7
This shows the effect of refurbishing 350 grillages each year of the worst-condition grillages.
Studies have revealed that concrete foundations built before 1983 were usually designed
based on very limited soil testing and often assumed soil properties, leading to occasional
installation of undersize foundations. In the 1990s several hundred safety critical sites were
investigated, with some 20% later being strengthened. Similar investigations have been
carried out in recent years, again resulting in approximately 20% being strengthened. Urban
developments and changing land use continue to increase the safety criticality of numerous
sites each year.
We will continue to investigate the capacity of existing foundations at critical sites and will
strengthen those found to be understrength. The plan is to annually investigate foundations
at 40 towers and strengthen an average of 8 each year over the RCP2 period.
The cost of pile foundation strengthening has been derived using our approach to volumetric
forecasting, which is discussed in subsection 4.1.4. Costs to strengthen concrete foundations
vary considerably, from $25,000 to $170,000 at each site, with an average cost of $105,000
(including design). An annual cost of $880,000 has been allowed for each year from 2015 to
2020 for strengthening undersized pile foundations.
Pile foundation replacement generally focuses on sites susceptible to erosion (where the
land is unstable), and those in rivers which have degraded to a point where replacement is
warranted. This work is required to support safety and reliability by preventing structure
collapses due to foundation failures.
Over the past 10 years, an average of five pile foundations each year have required
replacement, with the number each year being somewhat dependent on natural
environmental events. Pile foundation replacements for RCP2 are forecast at approximately
9 structures per year addressing condition based replacements and new installations in flood
prone river locations.
The cost of pile foundations are derived using our volumetric forecasting methodology,
which is discussed in subsection 4.1.4. The average out-turn cost for each foundation
replacement is $47,000. Based on 47 pile foundation replacements over RCP2, this equates
to a total cost of $2.2m.
The main purpose of this strategy is to ensure continuing safe and efficient access to
transmission lines for maintenance and project works.
Well maintained access tracks and bridges are essential to allow safe access to transmission
line assets when responding to faults or performing routine inspections and maintenance.
Access routes must be maintained so that, as a minimum, the access tracks and bridges can
safely support access using conventional 4WD vehicles. The landowners requirements for
access and load-bearing capability may be significantly less than ours, and existing bridges
may need to be upgraded or replaced to meet our requirements. This is particularly the case
where the capacity of an existing bridge is a potential constraint on project works such as
grillage replacements or conductor stringing. Our technical standards for bridges rely on the
Transit NZ Bridge Manual.
The average annual expenditure on access track bridge replacements over the last five years
is approximately $1.0m and this is predicted to continue through RCP2.
Based on a forecast of 64 bridge replacements over RCP2, we estimate a total expenditure
of $6.0m.
We have adopted a risk-based prioritisation approach that takes into account four factors to
prioritise foundation works:
condition (taking due account of any known discrepancies between grillage and
interface condition)
asset criticality (in respect to Grid reliability and safety)
existing foundation capacity and whether the foundation should be strengthened
whether other works are required on the same property (minimise landowner
disruption).
Ensure any work that changes loadings on structures includes a robust design
assessment of the foundation strength to ensure compliance with current
standards.
Most foundation works are repetitive with similar scopes. They are categorised as
volumetric works for estimation purposes. Cost estimates for volumetric capital projects are
developed on the basis of tailored ‘building blocks’ informed by actual cost of completed,
equivalent historic projects. This feedback-based process is used to derive average unit costs
for future works. See subsection 4.1.2 for further details on how this is applied to
replacement projects.
The P50 cost value is an estimate of the project cost based on a 50% probability that the cost
will not be exceeded; that is, the P50 estimate is based upon an equal chance of project
overruns or under runs up to the finalisation of the project scope. In a general sense, the
expected cost of a programme of similar projects is of more interest than the costs of
projects that are estimated separately. Assumptions made in using a volumetric costs
methodology to achieve P50 include:
the sample size of historic works is sufficiently large to provide a symmetric
distribution for the cost
a large number of equivalent projects will be undertaken in future
cost building blocks based on historic out-turn costs capture the impact of past risks
volumetric estimates are to be determined using the Transpower Enterprise
Estimation System (TEES) (US Cost) system
scope is reasonably well defined and reflects a predetermined list of ‘standard
building blocks applied to all estimates.
4.2.1 Design
When applied to foundations, the design process8 aims to ensure appropriate site-specific
designs are used. As discussed above in subsection 4.1.2, concrete plugs with cast-in tower
leg stubs are the preferred method for new foundations. Where concrete is not easily
transportable to a particularly remote location, a standard grillage or other foundation type
may be considered.
Foundation design
Ensure assets with high safety or Grid criticality are designed and maintained
to be more reliable than less critical assets.
Our transmission line loading standard (TP.DL 12.01) specifies higher-return period weather
events for critical assets than for less critical ones (such as higher reliability level for more
critical assets). This is in line with standard international practice.
There are significant economies of scale in increasing foundation capacity at the same time
as undertaking foundation encasement/replacement. For concrete encasement, the only
additional cost is for extra concrete, as little more time is required to dig a bigger hole. For
the grillage replacement option, slightly longer grillage members are required, but, again,
the installation cost is relatively constant.
Designing replacement foundations taking into account anticipated design loads of likely
future upgrades is prudent, sustainable asset management planning and delivers on the
objectives relating to network and cost performance.
4.2.2 Procurement
For more details of our general approach to procurement, see The Sourcing, Supply &
Contracts Approach (2011) and the Delivery Lifecycle Strategy.
Procurement issues relevant to the foundations fleet during the RCP2 period are set out
below.
8
While design activities are undertaken during the Planning Lifecycle, the majority of detailed design takes place as
part of the delivery cycle.
Project deliverability
Ensure planned projects are deliverable within available financial, labour and
material constraints.
Our IWP processes deliver on this strategy. In particular, ensuring deliverability of projects
planned in line with the IWP processes is essential to support our objectives of controlling
costs and achieving the desired asset management outcomes.
Package work
Where practicable, work is packaged to maximise efficiency and ensure that any travel time,
landowner disruption and system outages are minimised. Under the IWP processes, an
integrated programme view is taken rather than evaluating the sum of the individual works.
This strategy aligns with the objectives in relation to cost optimisation and system
performance and reliability.
4.3 Operations
The Operations Lifecycle phase for asset management relates to planning and real time
functions. Operational activities undertaken are described in detail in the Operations
Lifecycle Strategy. The following discussion focuses on operational issues that are specific to
the foundations fleet.
Very few foundation works require outages. When works do require an outage, we
coordinate with stakeholders to ensure that any unavoidable system disruptions and
outages are notified well in advance so that affected parties can prepare. This strategy aligns
with the stakeholder and network performance objectives.
Resources must be sufficient to manage contingencies using a tiered response where local
contractors rectify failures of one or two structures, but may ask others for help following
multiple structure failures. We ensure that asset specific emergency plans are developed for
critical assets.
Emergency Restoration Team and emergency spares: Maintain readiness of
emergency restoration team and structures – ability to temporarily restore a
localised failure (up to 5 towers or 2 km) of any one line (double or single circuit)
within 10 days where physical Grid redundancy is not available.
Emergency Management Team: Maintain readiness of emergency management
team with communications routes to Civil Defence and to site works contractors.
Yearly drill for significant outage communications and process. Continue the
business continuity plan, including emergency restoration structures.
Business continuity plan: Maintain the business continuity plan, including
emergency restoration structures, and put in place as required.
This strategy delivers on the objectives in relation to System Performance and Reliability.
Carry out regular patrols to allow the planning of work required to mitigate or
avoid any failure risks.
Line patrols are generally performed once a year on every transmission line asset. The
frequency of patrols will be assessed based on site or corridor safety criticality. A ground-
based patrol visits each structure foundation to identify any defects that could pose a risk to
the structure integrity. Such defects include:
severely damaged foundations
geotechnical risks due to slips, scouring and subsidence
third party excavation or construction around tower foundations.
When significant defects are identified a maintenance job is raised to rectify the issue.
This strategy supports the network performance objectives for foundation assets.
The condition assessment (CA) programme monitors and records the condition of
transmission line structures, foundations, conductors and hardware. The programme
provides a basis upon which replacement or maintenance options can be investigated, and
enables planning to take into account the impact of varying environmental ageing factors. It
also allows extrapolation of the assessed condition into the future. All CA data is currently
stored in our maintenance management system MMS, however this is being replaced with a
MAXIMO- based asset management information system. By the end of 2013 all CA data will
be on the MAXIMO system, which is expected to provide clearer reporting of data and
trends.
As discussed in 2.2.3, condition assessments are carried out on a cyclic basis and entail a
detailed inspection of the structure and span. The assessment produces a condition
assessment score for various components and a defect list. New foundation assets are first
assessed just prior to expiration of the defects liability period. Thereafter, tower line assets
are generally assessed every 8 years. If the condition assessment score is less than 50, the
assessment frequency is reduced to 4 years.
Sites with unusually rapid degradation or those with higher criticality may be assessed more
frequently. At June 2013, 5%–10% of individual towers and pole structures are on partial
(half cycle) assessments. Condition assessment is carried out in line with TP.SS 02.17B
Transmission line condition assessment Part B: Structures.
We will continue to develop and refine the existing condition assessment process to ensure
relevant, nationally consistent, high-quality data is collected to inform asset planning and
decision making.
Fault Response
Fault response is required to restore the function of assets as quickly as possible to maintain
supply to customers.
Ensure Lines Maintenance contractors have staff patrolling the asset within
one hour of being notified of a fault and can respond to two faults at the
same time.
The purpose of a fault patrol is to establish if the circuit can be safely re-energised and
determine the cause of the fault. For the purposes of system performance and safety, it is
critical that this be established as quickly as possible. When the cause is determined, repairs
are planned and implemented commensurate with the safety risk and asset criticality. This
supports our network performance and safety objectives.
See the strategy Maintain Contingency Response Resources for details on how we will
manage the response of contractors to faults.
Repairs
We may repair foundations where a fault has been identified that could potentially result in
a failure or when a failure has occurred. In both cases the repairs are carried out to support
the safety and network performance objectives.
9
Where the number of potential repairs is deemed sufficiently high, a Maintenance Project will be instigated to
undertake the repairs works.
Foundation connection components comprise two types, those with baseplates and anchor
bolts and those with cast in stubs. All are subject to corrosion. Foundation components are
considered a relatively minor part of the overall foundation and tower structure and, as
such, their refurbishment is considered a maintenance project activity. Regardless, their
failure has the potential to result in a structure collapse with significant implications for
safety and reliability.
We periodically review refurbishment criteria and designs to ensure appropriate practice is
being employed.
Baseplate /anchor bolt: Poor-quality dry-pack mortar originally used under
baseplate- type foundations is porous and has led to mortar crumbling. Moisture
ingress under the baseplate has subsequently led to corrosion of the anchor bolts
and baseplate (which is not visible until the grout is removed during refurbishment).
Refurbishment selection is based on the minimum condition assessment score of the
four leg-based scores collected at each site. The typical threshold score of 50 before
any significant rusting or loss of section is visible. Some 1,300 baseplate connections
currently have a condition assessment score less than 50 (see subsection 2.2.3).
Cast-in in-situ stub leg: There are often rust issues at the concrete interface
(ringbark corrosion), but they typically do not extend far into the concrete (<20mm).
Refurbishment by blasting and painting has proven highly successful. In extreme
We plan to complete river protection work on existing pole foundations where river erosion
poses a significant threat to security of supply on the Grid. The work is planned for 38 sites
on three South Island assets: AHA-OTI-A, DOB-TEE-A and BLN-KIK-A. Estimated costs over
RCP2 are $1.0m, which equates to an annual average expenditure of $200,000.
4.5.1 Disposal
The Disposal Lifecycle eventuates when foundations are no longer needed or when a
foundation has degraded to an extent where refurbishing is uneconomic. Foundations may
be replaced with new ones, yet there are important requirements for the disposal phase.
In the case of a failure, we carry out diagnostic inspection and testing to investigate the
cause of the failure. This information is fed into the management of the entire foundation
asset fleet.
Site reinstatement
4.5.2 Divestment
Implementation of divestment is primarily the change of ownership, although we must also
remain cognisant of any safety and environmental issues and technical impacts on the Grid
such as a change in constraints and flexibility of Grid operation.
Foundation divestment
We are continuing with the transfer of a number of assets at the fringes of the existing Grid
to our distribution business customers. This process and its justification are described fully in
the Disposal and Divestment Lifecycle Strategy.
Refer to the Towers and Poles Fleet Strategy for the number of towers and poles likely to be
transferred to customers between 2013/14 and 2019/20. This includes all divestments that
we believe have a 50% or greater likelihood of occurring during the timeframe.
The total number of assets to be transferred represents 4% of the total tower and 9% of the
total pole fleet as at June 2013. All towers will have associated foundations and these will be
divested with the tower structure.
4.6 Capability
We require grid assets and equipment to be maintained, tested and operated to high
standards of skill, professionalism and safety. Work is to be carried out only by individuals
Comprehensive records that cover the original installation of a foundation structure and any
subsequent modifications are vital to enable quality asset management decisions. Data must
include details of exactly what is installed, type test reports, design reports, condition data
and investigation reports. Quality condition data is also required.
While good asset attribute and condition data is available for most foundation sites, some
fields are currently incomplete. Data quality and completeness will continually be reviewed
and amended as required to ensure a high-quality dataset is maintained. The current project
to transition to the MAXIMO-based asset management information system will include a
review and cleansing of data.
We plan to enhance the failure and incidence records system to improve consistency and
usefulness of the data, including root cause analysis.
To improve condition assessment consistency, improved guidelines will be developed
including more photographic examples where relevant.
Maintain and develop the fleet strategy for the foundation fleet.
Continue the development and refinement of models to predict the asset health of
foundations, particularly for grillages. Ensure the modelling includes lessons learned from
the refurbishment programme in relation to observed degradation in various soil types,
moisture contents, land use etc.
Revise building blocks on an ongoing basis using costs from completed works and forecast
innovations and improvements. Use these costs in the economic modelling along with
degradation rates and AHI to define least lifecycle cost options for programmes of work.
We will develop an improved risk management framework and tools that can be used across
the foundations fleet to evaluate investment options. The key parts of this framework will be
tools for making quantitative estimates of the likely impacts of foundation failures on service
performance and safety on a span-by-span basis. The risk model will specifically consider
uncertainty in the inputs to risk-based decision making.
We will ensure more robust and detailed development of scope for major replacements to
improve the accuracy of cost estimates and the validity of the economic analysis of options.
Risk management processes will be made more robust and systematic, and will allow risk
assessments to be more readily communicated to internal and external stakeholders.
We maintain a minimum baseline of retained skilled workforce: engineers and site works
operators who understand the physical assets. All workers must hold appropriate
competencies to work on our assets in line with the service specifications.
Increase and then maintain the in-house skill base with regard to Asset
Management.
To ensure better long-term asset management outcomes, we plan to increase the emphasis
on training in Asset Management principles and application across all relevant parts of the
business.
Enhancement
and Modify existing foundations, including strengthening and relocation, to support new structures or
to enable upgrading of conductors.
Development
Use concrete encasement designs as the preferred refurbishment option wherever they can be
installed in a cost effective manner.
By the end of the RCP2 period, refurbish, preferably by concrete encasement, all grillages that
currently have a condition assessment score less than 30. Ensure no grillage foundation has a
condition assessment score less than 40 by 2033 (in 20 years).
Replacement
and Strengthen undersized foundations in all critical locations to minimise the risk of tower failure due
to overloading.
Refurbishment
Replace or refurbish pile foundations based on condition.
Replace access corridor bridges based on condition.
Prioritise the refurbishment and strengthening of foundations taking into account existing
condition, asset criticality and other factors.
Integrated Ensure any work that changes loadings on structures includes a robust design assessment of the
Works Planning foundation strength to ensure compliance with current standards.
Cost Estimation Ensure foundation project estimates are developed and scoped to achieve P50 cost value. P50 is
an estimate of the project cost based on a 50% probability that the cost will not be exceeded.
Delivery
Ensure assets with high safety or Grid criticality are designed and maintained to be more reliable
Design than less critical assets.
Design replacement foundations to carry the anticipated design loads of likely future upgrades.
Procurement Award contractor work by geographic locations on a sole source ‘yours to lose’ basis.
Ensure planned projects are deliverable within available financial, labour and material constraints.
Delivery
Planning Package works into blocks of consecutive structures and ensure multiple works are carried out at
one site simultaneously wherever possible.
Operations
Outage Planning Plan to minimise disruption to customers for foundation works that require outages.
Contingency Have sufficient plans, skilled manpower and emergency spares in place to enable rapid
restoration of transmission service following single or multiple structure failure(s) or conductor
Planning
drop(s).
Carry out regular patrols to allow the planning of work required to mitigate or avoid any failure
Preventive risks.
Maintenance
Carry out regular foundation condition assessments.
Ensure Lines Maintenance contractors have staff patrolling the asset within one hour of being
Corrective notified of a fault and can respond to two faults at the same time.
Maintenance Complete slope stability and waterway protection works and minor foundation repairs at
structures where specific defects need repair.
Refurbish corroding baseplates, anchor bolts and cast-in stubs at a condition assessment score
of 50 prior to onset of significant rusting.
Maintenance
Projects Refurbish specific foundations in marine environments.
Complete waterway protection work on defective pole foundations in riverbeds.
Capability
Asset Maintain up-to-date records of all foundation asset attributes, condition and performance.
Knowledge Maintain and develop the fleet strategy for the foundation fleet.
Risk
Develop a risk-based framework and associated tools for evaluating foundation investments.
Management
Adhere to the following service specifications, TP.SS 06.20 (Minimum competencies for lines
Training and maintenance) and TP.SS 06.25 (Minimum requirements for Transpower field work).
Competence
Increase and then maintain the in-house skill base with regard to Asset Management.
Appendices
A GRILLAGE EXAMPLES
Figure 13 shows a cross section of a grillage foundation.
Ground line
interface
Grillage
Table 4 shows the grillage foundation condition assessment guidelines. Table 5 shows
grillage foundation connection (buried grillage – soil/main leg interface) condition
assessment guidelines.
Condition
Guidelines
Assessment
100 New steel grillage fully galvanised, correctly backfilled and compacted as is standard.
80 Older grillage (now fitted with cathodic protection (C/P)) otherwise in condition score of
50-60.
70 Bolts beginning to rust beneath the surface.
40 Rust beginning to pit steel below ground line (GL) advancing up main leg member,
now visible at the surface. C/P no longer effective and foundation deteriorating.
30 Flaking rust on main leg section of grillage just below GL, and some loss of cross
section.
20 (Replacement Metal loss on main and/or bracing steel reaches replacement criteria (10% loss of
criteria R/C) cross section).
10 Metal loss exceeds replacement criteria, but tower not significantly at risk.
Condition
Guidelines
Assessment
New (or refurbished steel members, galvanised and free of damage, with added protective
100
coating in as-new condition).
60 Speckled rust.
50 Steel rust stained at ground level and just below the surface. Patches of galvanising gone.
Loss of metal, pitting and nodules of rust appearing on steel surfaces at ground line and
40
below.
30 Flaking rust.
Severe rusting of steel about ground line and below, heavy flaking rust, black underneath
20 (R/C) with loss of metal cross-sectional area of approximately 10%. Complete breakdown of nuts
and bolt heads.
Condition
Guidelines
Assessment
100 New foundation, in good condition.
50 Spiral reinforcing in some areas corroding, major spalling off the cap.
Foundation at replacement criteria, and no longer able to reliably sustain ultimate site-
20 (R/C) specific design loads with reliability, due to crumbling of concrete mass and/or corrosion of
the reinforcing, causing serious spalling/cracking etc.
Foundation severely cracked unable to sustain design loads, but not at immediate risk of
10
failure.
Condition
Guidelines
Assessment
New foundation. Galvanised leg section is free of damage, is protectively painted 300mm
100
either side of concrete surface level.
Galvanising on leg dulled, concrete darkening and surface roughening. Protective paint at
80
concrete level showing signs of peeling or wear.
Flaking rust and loss of metal cross section of 10% at concrete level. Minor spalling to
20 (R/C)
concrete as rust penetrates beneath the concrete surface, heavy staining around leg.
Table 8 shows the foundation connection (anchor bolts and baseplate/mortar and concrete
interface) condition assessment guidelines.
Condition
Guidelines
Assessment
New or refurbished galvanised steel baseplate onto concrete held anchor bolts. Waterproof
100 mortar packed tightly between baseplate and concrete foundation. New surface protective
coating to seal out any water.
70 Baseplate and anchor bolt galvanising rough, and critical areas discoloured.
Rust staining appearing as a brown/red rim on bottom of baseplate. First speckled rust
50
appearing on anchor bolt threads.
Significant rusting to bottom of baseplate, but no loss of steel. Rusting of bolt threads and
30
nuts below the baseplate.
Flaking rust to bottom of baseplate. Chunks of mortar gone exposing significant rusting of
20 (R/C) inner bolts and baseplate /levelling nuts. 20% metal loss on any one bolt and 10% metal
loss over all anchor bolts.
Metal loss on anchor bolts which prevents the withstanding of ultimate site-specific design
10
loads.
50% or more loss of cross section on anchor bolts overall, or serious risk to tower at a less
0
loss level where structure heavily loaded.
Table 8: Foundation Connection (anchor bolts and baseplate /mortar and concrete Interface) condition assessment
Guidelines
Encase 300/Year
Key points of alternative plan 300/Year:
Target 300 grillage encasements each year.
Prioritisation as shown in the matrix in Figure 8.
Plan fails to meet the objectives stated in section 4.1.2, that is, no grillages with CA
less than 30 by 2020.
Figure 16 shows the effect of the encasement plan on grillage condition.
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Jun-2013 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20
Figure 17 shows the effect of the programme on foundation asset health/remaining life at
the end of RCP2.
Encase 200/Year
Key points of alternative plan 200/Year:
Target 200 grillage encasements each year.
Prioritisation as shown in the matrix in Figure 8.
Plan fails to meet the objectives stated in section 4.1.2; that is, no grillages with CA
less than 30 by 2020
Figure 18 shows the effect of the encasement plan on grillage condition.
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Jun-2013 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20
Figure 19 shows the effect of the programme on foundation asset health/remaining life at
the end of RCP2.