Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 38, No.6, February-March 2012 pp. 507-518

No.38-41

Equivalent pole concept for tapered power poles

Sriram Kalaga*
[8J

Email: drkalaga@aol.com

*Allgeier Martin & Associates, Inc., Missouri 64834, USA.

Received: 04 August 2010; Accepted: 30 January 2011

An Equivalent Pole concept is introduced to analyze tapered power poles. Using stiffness and strength criteria, diameters
of equiv~lent constant section poles are derived for wood and steel poles by comparing deflections and stresses with those
of tapered poles. Axial, flexural and torsion loading were considered. The derivations are validated for wood and steel
poles using exact computer analyses. Both qualitative and quantitative inferences were drawn and suggestions for further
extensions are made.
KEYWORDS: Transmission poles; steel; wood; stiffness; strength; finite elements.

The structural response of transmission poles is usually

governed by the behavior of the tapered element under
compression, bending, shear and/or torsion resulting
from the application of wire, wind, ice and other loads.
Conventionally, steel, concrete and wood are used for
high voltage transmission poles but it is only recently
. that fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) poles tare also
being employed successfully as transmission structures 1.
Exact analyses of these poles involve non-linear finite
element (FE) procedures, which often include secondorder (P-d) effects and so are not amenable for quick
hand calculations. For instance, exact solutions for
the critical buckling capacities of guyed, tapered steel
poles (8- and 12-sided), are hard to find; solutions for
wood poles, though available in literature23, are not
adequately validated by full-scale tests.
A brief literature survey shows significant basic
research on tapered cantilevers dating back to the mid
1950's4. Past investigations covered topics such as
large defiectiqns 5, formulation of explicit FE stiffness
matrices6-8, torsion 9, combined non-linearity 10 and
elasto-plastic analysis of steel poles 11 , among others.
Explicit FE formulations are shown to be tedious dli_e

to multiple integrations for varying area and moment

of inertia1213 With specific reference to buckling of
guyed poles, most research dealt with wide-flange,
box and other cross sections3 but not dodecagonal
(12-sided) steel poles commonly used in high-voltage
transmission applications. Banerjee et al7 presented
buckling solutions for hollow tapered beam-columns,
but the procedure is part of a complex Bernoulli-Euler.
stiffness analysis procedure. The ASCE guidelines 14
for steel poles simply give an expression for allowable
compressive stress based on limiting width/thickness
(wit) ratios, but this refers to local buckling rather than
overall pole buckling.
To the extent the author knows, there is little
information available on the application of equivalency
concepts - using both strength and stiffness - to the
analysis of transmission poles. This study is a small
step in that direction. The aim of this paper is to present
the concept of an 'Equivalent Pole' (EP) which can
be used to convert tapered poles into constant section
elements. The EP can then be used to develop simple
analytical models covering various load patterns. The
proposed process is validated on poles made of steel

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012

507.

(hollow) and wood (solid). Possible extensions of the

idea are proposed.

daq

1'7""''
',f .. ,
,.

~.

EQUIVALENT POLE CONCEPT

Figures 1 and 2 show a typical tapered transmission
pole of length 'L' and cross sections associated with
different materials. Conventional FE pole modeling
usually involves a piece-wise linear approach where
the system is considered as made up of several elements
of equal length, each with a constant cross section15.
Alternatively, the entire pole can be transformed into
one single element of constant cross section (Fig. 3).
The idea is illustrated here by proposing the concept of
an 'Equivalent Pole' whose strength an4 stiffness are
approximately the same as that of the original tapered
system.

I,

)_.....
.:...

..
.

'=:>
.:~~;~;.

.: .\i
.;I

I,,.,.
_;,....,;,.

:1

'i/ I"'
_i__Li

Fig. 3 Equivalent pole

For a given pole class and height, the base diameter

(and ground line diameter) and taper are fixed. For
example, Class 1 wood poles have a tip diameter of
8.60 inches (21.8 em) and a taper of 0.12 in/ft (3 em/
m), which gives a base diameter of 15.7 inches (40
em). For steel poles, the taper is slightly larger at 0.16
in/ft (4 cm/m). Class 1 steel poles have a top diameter
ranging from 7.25 inches (18.4 mm) to 10 inches (25.4
mm), depending on the manufacturer.
For stiffness, deflections and/or rotations under
various loadings (Fig. 4) are evaluated. The load cases
cover axial loading (a), bending (b, c an<jl d) and torsion
(e). The strength criteria considered her.e are buckling,
bending and torsion:. The diameter of the equivalent
pole, deq. which satisfies both stiffness and strength
conditions, is the parameter governing equivalency.

Fig. 1 Typical transmission pole

r.t'

GI
.

""

Steel

Fig. 2

Pole cross sections

(ll)

{b)

Fig. 4 Loadings considered for equivalency

508

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012

(d)

(e)

I
I

'

r.

Loadings on transmission structures involve dead

loads, ice loads, wind pressure and wire tensions,
depending on the type of structure. Most tangent
(suspension) transmission poles (i.e.) those primarily
loaded by transverse forces are governed by flexure.
They are also directly embedded into the ground or
fixed to a concrete pier; so the boundary conditions
are similar to that of a cantilever (i.e.) fixed-free
conditions.
Tables 1-a and 1-h show the configurations and
equations associated with the stiffness and strength
criteria, for wood poles. Similarly Tables 2-a and 2-b
show the configurations and equations associated with
steel poles. These expressions are readily available in
literature 16- 18
In each load category, the theoretical deflections (or
slopes) of the original tapered system are compared
with those of the equivalent system; the value of deq
is computed from the equality. Typical computation
for selected loadings is shown in tbe Appendix. The
process is repeated for the stret:t~th category. Tables 3
and 4 show the expressions obtained for deq in each
case. It can be seen that diameters for cases involving
bending and torsion are identical since the form of
,'!:.
..

the expressions for these stresses are more or less

identical.
Numerical" values of equivalent diameters are
calculated for wood and steel poles of various
)heights. In each height class, the maximum value is
determined. These are plotted for pole heights ranging
from 45 (13.5 m) to 90 (27 m) in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.
All equations are assembled and solved with a special
computer program19
16.00
15.50

.s"'"'
~

'"'
B
0

15.00
14.50
14.00

....~

---

....-

13.50

....--~

......---

13.00
12.50
12.00
45
Fig. 5

50

55

60

65 70 75
Pole Height (ft)

80

85

90

Equivalent diameters for wood poles

TABLE 1-A EQUIVALENCY CONCEPT FOR SOLID (WOOD) POLES

DEFLECTIONS

.
Oridnal Tapered Solid beam

Equation for Deflection or Slope

at Free End

Equivalent Constant Section

Beam

Col. (1)

1.

::r-N

il = NL I EAa [In (l+r)lr]

tp

il = P3l3Ela [dt/daP

Col. (2)

2.

3.

C)M

8 = MLI1.075 E/0 [di/da ]1.587

4.

f I I I I I I IIW
[
:::1

il

= wL4 I 7.872 E/0 [db I d0 ] 3282

Equation for Deflection or Slope

at Free End

1-N

il =NL I EAeq

il = P3 I 3Eleq

~pM

O=ML/ Eleq

fiiiiiiiiW

ICT

tl = wL4f&Eleq

5.

3~T

r = (Ai/Aa)- I = (d,jda)
tp = (I + f3 + {32)13 f33

8- 321/J TL!:Jr Gda4

8-32 TL/n G deq4

=l

{3 = diJda

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012

509

EQUNALENCY CONCEPT FOR SOLID (WOOD} POLES

STRENGTHS
Equivalent Constant Section Beam
Equation for Strength

TABLE 1-B
Oridnal Tapered Solid beam

Equation for Strength

Col. (4)

Col. (3)
. .

6.

Per= ([diJdaJ2-61 ;r2 ~ /,/42)

7.

i:X

a=32 Ml:~rdx3

dp

. i

a=4wL2/;r dx3

QM

1-N

Per -;r2 E!eq14L2

tp

a= 32M/ ;r deq3

..

8.

::J-N

'

:
a=3~ M/;r

~M

deq3

9.

4wL2/:~rdi

I I I I I I I IIW

I I I I !1 I I IIW
J
[
'x

'f;, 16T /;rdx3

10.
'

(T

4wL2/;rdeq3

cr

II

'fmax= l6T/;rdeq3

'
:x

All bending and shesr stresses refer to rnid-!,lpan.

d:x = lh. (1 + {3)/da

{3 =db/ da
TABLE2-A EQUNALENCY CONCEPT FOR HOLLOW (STEEL) POLES
DEFLECTIONS

..
Oridnal Tapered Hollow Beam

Equation for Deflection or Slope

at Free End

Equivalent Constant Section

Hollow Beam

Equation for Deflection or Slope

at Free End

Col. (5)

1.

:::.1-N

2.

Jp

'
'
:X

3.

QM

'X

4.

I I

!If

I I

2, w

Col. (6)

NL I EAa [In (l+r)lr]

A=rJ PL3f2E C t [rbl raP

(} =.

[ML/2ECt]* [(ra + rb)/ ra2

rb2]

II

:x

NL/ EAeq

A = P3 /3Eleq

O=MLI Eleq

IIIIIIIIIW
A=~ w4 I 2E C t

[rb-ra]4

() =

[TLI GJa]* 1/J

II

C = Cross-sectional constant related to shape = 3.29 ( 12-sided steel pole)

r= (ATJAa) -1 = (riJr0 ) -1
'f} = [2ln (ri/ra)]- [(rb- ra) I rb]* [3- (r,/rb)]
~ = 3ra [-In (ri/r0 ) ] - [r0 - rb] + (ri/6 rb2) + lh.] + rb
1 = (1 + {3 + {32)/3 {33,{3 = diJda

510

r
f'M

II

'X

5.

11-N

II

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38. No.6. FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012

II
II ~T

A=
. V:,4/SEIeq

(J=TLI GJeq

TABLE2-B

EQUIVALENCY CONCEPT FOR HOLLOW (STREEL) POLES

STRENGTHS

Equation for Strength

Oridnal Tapered Hollow beam

Col. (7)
6.

l+-N

Equation for Stre

Equivalent Constant Section

Hollow Beam

Per= ([di/daJ261 n2 E lj4L2)

Col. (8)

Per= n 2 E Ieq I

1-N

7.

Jp

i:X

tp

a=PLI2Sx

a= PL/2 Se~

8.

S\M

:X

9.
f

!!1 I
!'x

I I

a=MI Sx

~M

a= M/ Seq

I I I I I I I IIW
I IIW
J

a= 4 wL2 I n'dx3

a= 4 wL2 In'
f

10.

:X

=0

r = 16 TIn d,X3

r= l6Tind

(T

All bending and shesr stresses refer to mid-span.

r = (Ai/Aa) -l = (ri/ra) -l

it referred to axial compressive load for

pole. Equivalent diameters determined frc
perspectives came from bending stress for W
and axial compressive stress for steel poles.

TABLE3

EQUIVALENT DIAMETER FOR SOLID (WOOD)

POLES

Load
Case#

Expression for Equivalent Dilm:_).eter deq

Stiffness Criteria

Strength Ch.teria

[r/ln (l+r)]O.SO da

[db2.67 dal.33]0.25

19

[db3 da]0.25

Y:z (1+,8) da

18

[1.075 db!.581 d}.413]0.25

Y:z (1+,8) da

..-._ 17

[0.984 db3.282 da0.718]0.25

Y:z ( 1+,8) da

3!:)

16

[3,83/l + ,8 + ,82]0.25 da

Y:z (1+,8) da

15

TABLE4
Load
Case#

0~

EQUIVALENT DIAMETER FOR HOLLOW

(STEEL) POLES

14
13
12

Stiffness Criteria

Strength Criteria

[rlln (I+ r)] da

[db2.61 dal.33]0.33

[(5.34!1]) (rb- ra)3]0.33

Y:z ( 1+,8) Ja

2.52*[ra2 rb2! ra + rb]0.33

Y2 (1+,8) da

[(l/8;) (db- da)4]0.33

Y2 (1+,8) da

[3,83/l + ,8 + ,82]0.33 da

Y:z (1+,8) da

It is observed that for wood poles, the maximum

equivalent diameter from deflection point of view

corresponded to the case with uniform load whereas

Fig. 6

v
45

Expression for Equivalent Diameter deq

50

55

L:-:

/
60

65
70
75
Pole Height (ft)

80

Equivalent diameters for steel poles

For example, the maximum equivalent di<

a 55 ft wood pole is 14.11 "and that of a sir
pole is 13.46". These values are shown on I
Fig. 6, respectively.
Applications

The above model is applied to four transmis:

each in wood and steel, sizes ranging from 5
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERIN<
TT

,..,...

..,.T

T"'T""'T"\'nTT4n"Cr

. . . 'n,..,TT,..,A1

standard 14; the flat faces provide means for welding

connector plates and attaching insulator hardware and
climbing grips. Steel section properties used in this
study therefore refer to 12-sided poles.

ft (16.5 m to 25.5 m). Steel and Wood pole properties

are obtained from Catalog20 and RUS Bulletin21 ,
respeCtively. For HV (high-voltage) transmission
lines, 12-sided (dodecagonal) steel poles are industry

1000 lbs
da = 8.6"
0.5'

o-

1000lbs

/
1000 lbs

variable

db = variable

variable

Wood Pole
L

All Poles are Southern Pine, MOR = 8000 psi, E = 1.8 X 10 6 psi
55-ft Class-1 Pole
at GL = 204 kip-ft

Mcap

65-ft Class-1 Pole

at GL = 242 kip-ft

Mcap

75-ft Class-1 Pole

at GL = 284 kip-ft

Mcap

(1 in= 25.4 mm, 1 ft = 30 em, 1lb = 4.45 N,

1 psi= 6.89 kPa, 1 ksi = 6.89 _Mpa, 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m)

Fig. 7(a) Wood poles analyzed by PLS-Pole

512

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012

85-ft Class-1 Pole

at GL = 322 kip-ft .

Mcap

Tapered Poles

For the poles with tapered sections, the geometrical

and strength data are shown in Fig. 7. All were Class 1
poles subject to a combination of loads covering those
considered in the previous derivations. Pole emb~dment

1000 lbs

.--

da = 7.25"

,__
,__

rrr-

,__

is 0.01 *L + 2', which is the nominal industry guideline.

To simulate end moment and torque, a tip load is applied
on a 12" (30 em) bracket shown as "0". All poles were
analyzed using the finite element- based PLS-Pole
software22 To increase accuracy, second-order eff~cts
were also modeled.

0.5'

!-----1

0-

1000 lbs

/
1000 lbs

:::

;g"'
0
......

variable

f--

t = 3/16"

f-f-f--f---

:,f

db =variable

///

z
variable

~ LJ
T
Steel Pole

All Poles are Galvanized Steel, Yield Strength = 65 ksi, E = 29

55-ft Class- I Pole
Mcap at GL = 132 kip-ft

65-ft Class- I Pole

Mcap at GL ~ 156 kip-ft

75-ft Class-! Pole

Mcap at GL= 181 kip-ft

x 106 psi
85-ft Class-! Pole
Mcap at GL = 209 kip-ft

(I in~ 25.4 mm, 1 ft = 30 em, lib= 4.45 N,

1 psi= 6.89 kPa, I ksi = 6.89 Mpa, I kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m)
Fig. 7(b) Bteel poles analyzed by PLS-Pole

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012

513

1000 lbs
0.5'

0 - - 1000lbs

/
1000 lbs

variable

deq = variable

variable

Wood Pole

L
All Poles are Southern Pine, MOR = 8000 psi, E = 1.8 X 106 psi

55-ft Class-! Pole

Mcap at GL = 184 kip-ft

65-ft Class-! Pole

Mcap at GL= 195 kip-ft

75-ft Class-! Pole

Mcap at GL = 205 kip-ft

85-ft Class-! Pole

Mcap at GL =214 kip-ft

(1 in= 25.4 mm, 1 ft = 30 em, 1 lb = 4.45 N,

1 psi= 6.89 kPa, 1 ksi = 6.89 Mpa, 1 kip-ft = 1.356 kN-m)
Fig. 8(a) Equivalent wood poles analyzed by PLS-Pole

Equivalent Poles

Similar PLS analyses were conducted for the four

structurally equivalent poles, of constant section. A
comparison of the selected values of parameters is
shown in Tables 5(a) to 5(d). In the case of steel poles,
the same thickness of3/16" (5 mm) is used for both the
actual and equivalent poles.
514

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012

A detailed discussion of the PLS modeling

process is beyond the scope of this paper. However,
it is worthwhile to note that the program includes
non- linear, 2nd Order (P-o effects). Displacement
limitations are generally not code-mandated but left to
the discretion of the utilities and engineering judgment.
This is because the poles vary from wood to steel to
concrete (and occasionally composites), which makes

1000 lbs

0 -IOOOlbs

/
1000 lbs

deq = variable

z
variable

Steel Pole
L

All Poles are Gaivanized Steel, Yield Strength= 65 ksi, E = 29

55-ft Class-1 Pole

Mcap at GL = 154 kip-ft

65-ft Class-! Pole.

M.:ap at GL = 192 kip-ft

75-ft Class-1. Pole

Mcap at GL = 234 kip-ft

106 psi
85-ft Class-1 Pole
Mcap at GL.= 284 kip-ft

(1 in= 25.4 mm, l ft = 30 em, l lb = 4.45 N,

I psi= 6.89 kPa, 1 ksi = 6.89 Mpa, lkip-ft = 1.356 kN~in)

Fig. 8(b) Equivalent steel poles analyzed by PLS-Pole

a single deflection limit impractical. Deflections are

not considered in this present study; but some oft-cited
limits are as follows:

Steel Poles: Total Pole Top Deflection under Ev

(Normal) Loading (No Wind, No Ice) not to ex'
of the pole height above ground

Wood Poles; Total Pole Top Deflection under Extreme

Wind Loading (90 mph or 145 kph) not to exceed 15%
of the pole height above ground.

Concrete Poles; Total Pole Top Deflectior

Every Day (Normal) Loading (No Wind, No Icc
exceed 5% of the pole height above ground

TABLES-A DATA OF ANALYZED 55-FT POLES

EQUIVALENT

ACTUAL
Pole

Diameter (in)

Deft (in)

Total Stress (ksi)

Diameter (in)

Deft (in)

Total Stress (ksi)

Top

GL

Top

GL**

Top andGL

Top

GL**

Wood

8,60

14.60

42.9

3.15

14.11

30.3

3.63

Steel

7.25

12.80

26.5

34.3

13.46

19.3

36.8

TABLE5-B

DATA OF ANALYZED 65-FT POLES

ACTUAL
Diameter (in)

Pole

EQUIVALENT

Deft (in)

Total Stress (ksi)

Diameter (in)

Deft (in)

Total Stress (ksi)

Top

GL**

Top and GL

Top*

GL**

14.37

36.7

3.47

14.82

25.0

37.7

Top

GL

Wood

8,60

15.45

63.1

3.29

Steel

7.25

13.84

39.5

38.1

TABLE 5-C

DATA OF ANALYZED 75-FT POLES

ACTUAL
Diameter (in)

Pole

EQUIVALENT

Deft (in)

Total Stress (ksi)

Diameter (in)

Deft (in)

Total Stress (ksi)

Top

GL

Top*

GL**

TopandGL

Top*

GL**

Wood

8,60

16.30

86.7

3.39

14.62

48.8

3.65

Steel

7.25

14.92

52.9

39.4

16.25

30.6

38.1

TABLE5-D

DATA OF ANALYZED 85-FT POLES

ACTUAL
Diameter (in)

Pole

..~t

EQUIVALENT

Deft (in)

Total Stress (ksi)

Diameter (in)

Deft (in)

Total Stress (ksi)

Top

GL

Top*

GL**

TopandGL

Top*

GL**

Wood

8,60

17.00

116.8

3.56

14.83

64.4

3.91

Steel

7.25

16.00

68.9

40.5

17.73

36.1

38.4

(1 in= 25.4 mm, 1 ksi- 6.89 MPa,)

*At Load Point

At Ground Line

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Tables 5(a) to 5(d) show the actual and equivalent sizes,
deflections and stresses, for each of the poles studied.
Deflections shown refer to the resultant of transverse
and longitudinal movements.
Wood Poles

The equivalent diameters of all four poles analyzed

were less than the corresponding ground line diameters
of the actual poles. The difference varied from 3.3%
to 13%. Stresses agreed rather well (+5.5% to +15%
difference) but the equivalent poles showed 29% to
45% less deflection. From deformation point of view,
it appears the equivalent pole is stiffer than the actual
one.
516

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012

Steel Poles

The equivalent diameters of all four poles analyzed were

more than the corresponding ground line diameters of
the actual poles. The difference varied from 5.1% to
11%. Once again stresses were rather close (differences
ranged from +7% to -5%) but the deflections differed
by -27% to -48%. From deformation perspectives, here
too, the equivalent pole is stiffer than the actual one,
For various pole heights, a correction factor for
deflections can be determined. This aspect could be
addressed as a part of a separate study.
CONCLUSIONS
While this study is by no means aU-inclusive, it appears
that the 'Equivalent Pole' concept can be used for

reasonably accurate, quick modeling of transmission

poles. Further studies in that direction are needed to
generalize the observations made herein. A larger
sample of poles with varied loading conditions can
help expand the concept introduced here. A parameter
study with various pole sizes and configurations can
be undertaken for a larger database of observations,
which can then be synthesized statistically to evolve
adjustment factors for deflections and/or stresses.
Consideration of pole tip deflection constraints may
aJso help in developing a more complete structural
~quivalent pole.
For this paper, the initial focus was on constant
thickness steel poles to simplify computations. Variable
thickness may be considered in subsequent editions.
Wood and steel poles are studied here but the ideas are
also applicable to concrete and fiberglass (composite)
systems. The concept can eventually be employed
to determine buckling loads of guyed poles by using
constant section FE models.

=> 1.233 del= 6.58 [rb- ra] 31'7

or

del= 5.34 [rb- ra] 31'7

=> deq = [5.34 [rb- raJ31q] 113
where; 'J = [2 In (r~ra)]- [(rb- ra)lrb]
Nomenclature

f3

The author wishes to acknowledge the facilities

provided by Allgeier, Martin and Associates, Inc.
during the duration of this study.
'it
APPENDIX
~erivation

of Eq,uivalent Diameter for Case 2 (Solid

parameters as defined in Table 2-a, b

parameter as defined in Table 1-a
Bending Stress

7:'

Shear Stress

Aa

Area at top= 1t di/4, Ab =Area at bottom

= 1t dil4 ~wood)
= Area at top= 3.22 da t, Ab =Area at bottom
= 3.22 db t (steel)
Flexural Stiffness
Diameter at Pole Top
= Diameter at Pole Bottom (ground line)
Diameter of Equivalent Pole
Diameter at Pole at Mid Span or Height
Modulus of Elasticity
Maximum Bending Stress
Yield Stress of Steel
Shear Modulus

Aa

da
db
deq
dx
E

Fb
Fy
G

Equating col. (1) and (2) from Table 1-a:

Ia

or, la [db ldaP -Ieq

(d~da)

tjJ

fole)

t1 = PL 3 I 3Ela [db I daJ3 = PL3 I 3Eleq

'J,~

EI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

* [3- (rafrb,)]

leq

Moment ofinertia at Pole Top=

(wood)

1t

da2164

Moment of Inertia of Equivalent Pole = 1t

da 2164 (wood)
Ia

Moment of Inertia at top = 0.411 da 3t

(steel)

=> deq = [da db 3 ]~

leq

Moment of Inertia of Equivalent Pole =

0.411 deq3 t (steel)

Derivation of Equivalent Diameter for Case 2 (Hollow

Pole)

Ja

Polar Moment of Inertia at Pole Top= 2*1a

= n d/4132 (wood)

Equating col. (1) and (2) from Table 2-a:

Ja

t1 ='I PL 3 I 2 E C t [rb- raP= PL 313 Eleq

Polar Moment oflnertia at Pole Top= 2*Ia

= 0.822 da3 t (steel)
Length of Pole
Moment

Using Ia = 1t da 4164 and Ieq =% deq4164, we have:

deq4~da db3

or
2 (3.29) t [rb- raP I '7 = 3Ieq = 3 (0.411 delt)

M
N

Axial Load

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.(!, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012

517

r
Ya
rb
t
Sa
Seq
Sa
Seq

T
w

=
=

Lateral Load
parameter as defined in Table 1-a
Pole Radius at Top
Pole Radius at Bottom (ground line)
Thickness of Steel Pole
Section 'Modulus at Pole Top = n da3132
(wood)
Section Modulus of Equivalent Pole = n
dell32 (wood)
Section Modulus at top = 0.822 da2t (steel)
Section Modulus of Equivalent Pole =
0.822 deit (steel)
Torsion
uniform load on beam

J,mFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

518

Technical Overview, Shakespeare Composite

Structures, Newberry, South Carolina, 2003 USA.
Pfabody, A.B. and Wekezer, J.W., "Buckling
Strength of Wood Power Polesusing Finite
Elements", Jl., of the Struct. Div., ASCE, Vol.
120, No.6, 1994, pp 1893-1908.
Gere, J.M. and Carter, W.O., "Critical Buckling
Loads for Tapered Columns," Jl, of the Str. Div.,
ASCE, Vol. 98, 1962, ST-1, pp 1-11.
Flodin J., "Deflections of Beams of Varying
Moment ofinertia," Jl., ofAmer. Soc. ofNautical
Engg., Vol. 69, 1957, pp 511-514.
Kemper, J.D., Large Deflections of Tapered
Cantilevered Beams, Inti. Jl., of Mech. Sci., Vol.
10, 1968, pp 469-478.
Ali, R., "Derivation of Stiffuess Matrix for a
Tapered Beam Element", Dept. of Transport
Tech., Loughborough Univ. ofTech., 1970, UK.
Banerjee, J.R. and Williams, F.W., "Exact
Bernoulli-Euler Static Stiffness matrix for a
Range of Tapered Beam-Columns," Inti. Jl., of
Numerical Methods in Engg., Vol. 23, 1986, pp
1615-1628.
Aristizabal-Ochoa, J.D., Tapered Beam and
Column Elements in Un-bracedFramedStructures,

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.
15.

Jl. ofComput. in CE, ASCE, Vol. 1, No.1, 1987,

pp 35-49.
Just, D.J. and Walley, W.J., "Torsion of Solid and
Hollow Rectangular Beams", Jl., of the Struct.
Div., ASCE, Vol. 105, No.9, 1979, pp 1789-1804.
Boissonnade, N. and Degee, H., "A New Spatial
Thin-Walled Beam Finite Element for Tapered
Members," Proa, Nat!. Conf on Theo. & App.
Mech., University of Liege, 2006, Belgium.
Lemaster, R., Vichien, N. and Theiss, T., ElasticPlastic Analysis of Tubular Transmission
Structures, Comp. and Structs., Vol. 28, No. 5,
1988, pp 603-620.
Li, G-Q. and Li, J-J., A Tapered TimoshenkoEuler Beam Element for Analysis of Steel Portal
Frames, J/., of Const. Steel Res., AISC, Vol. 58,
2002, pp 1531-1544.
Sapalas, V., Samofalov, M. 'and Saraskinas,
S., FEM Stability Analysis of Tapered BeamColumns, Jl, of Civil Engg. and Mgmt, VGTU,
Vilnius, Lithuania, 2005, pp 211-216.
Manual48-05, Design ofSteel Transmission Pole
Structures, 2006, ASCE.
Ashraf, M., Ahmad, H.M. and Siddiqui, Z.A., "A
Study of Power Transmission Poles," Asian Jl. of
Civil Engg., Vol. 6, No.6, 2005, pp 511-532.

16. Hopkins, R.B., Design Analysis of Shafts and

Beams, McGraw-Hill, 1970, New York.
17. Mikhelson, 1., Structural Engineering Formulas,
McGraw-Hill, 2004, New York.
18. Transmission and Distribution, Graphs to
Determine Structure Deflections, 1985, July.
19. Maple-5, Users Manual, Waterloo Maple, Ontario,
1997, Canada.
20. Steel Pole Catalog, Trans-American Power
Products, Houston, 2005, Texas.
21. RUS Bultetin 1724E-200, Design Manual for
High Voltage Transmission Lines, 2004, USDA.
22. PLS-Pole Users Manual; Powerline Systems Inc.,
Madison, 2005, Wisconsin.
(Discussion on this article must reach the editor before
May 31, 2012)