×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
• Talk With Other Members
• Be Notified Of Responses
• Keyword Search
Favorite Forums
• Automated Signatures
• Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

#### Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

# Pile Embedment - Broms method vs IBC method

 Forum Search FAQs Links MVPs

## Pile Embedment - Broms method vs IBC method

(OP)
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?

### RE: Pile Embedment - Broms method vs IBC method

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

### RE: Pile Embedment - Broms method vs IBC method

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.

### RE: Pile Embedment - Broms method vs IBC method

#### Quote (buck1017)

...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.

### RE: Pile Embedment - Broms method vs IBC method

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).

### RE: Pile Embedment - Broms method vs IBC method

Thanks SRE...

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

-Dik

#### Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

#### Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

#### Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login

Close Box

# Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

• Talk To Other Members
• Notification Of Responses To Questions
• Favorite Forums One Click Access
• Keyword Search Of All Posts, And More...

Register now while it's still free!