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

net/publication/281786041

Equivalent Pole Concept for Tapered Power Poles

Article  in  Journal of Structural Engineering (Madras) · February 2012

CITATION READS

1 183

1 author:

Sriram Kalaga

40 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

End Restraint Effects on Bolted Angles in Transmission Towers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sriram Kalaga on 19 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 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 second-
order (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 literature2•3, 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 inertia12•13 • 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 507.

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012
 (hollow) and wood (solid). Possible extensions of the daq
idea are proposed. 1'7""''
',f .. ,
,. I,
~. :
EQUIVALENT POLE CONCEPT
)_..... /
.:... ··
Figures 1 and 2 show a typical tapered transmission
pole of length 'L' and cross sections associated with L ·'·=:> ..
. I
:
L
.:~~;~;.
different materials. Conventional FE pole modeling
.: .\i
usually involves a piece-wise linear approach where ·.;I ! :1

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
I,,.,. 'i/ I"'
_;,....,;,. _i__Li
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 Fig. 3 Equivalent pole
approximately the same as that of the original tapered
system. 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 I
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
L em). For steel poles, the taper is slightly larger at 0.16 I
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.
I
I
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
Fig. 1 Typical transmission pole
pole, deq. which satisfies both stiffness and strength
conditions, is the parameter governing equivalency.

N
p r.t' T
M

GI
. ·w

. ""
Steel
Fig. 2 Pole cross sections

(ll) {b) (d) (e)

Fig. 4 Loadings considered for equivalency

508 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012
 Loadings on transmission structures involve dead the expressions for these stresses are more or less
loads, ice loads, wind pressure and wire tensions, identical.
depending on the type of structure. Most tangent Numerical" values of equivalent diameters are
(suspension) transmission poles (i.e.) those primarily calculated for wood and steel poles of various
loaded by transverse forces are governed by flexure. )heights. In each height class, the maximum value is
They are also directly embedded into the ground or determined. These are plotted for pole heights ranging
fixed to a concrete pier; so the boundary conditions from 45° (13.5 m) to 90° (27 m) in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.
'·
are similar to that of a cantilever (i.e.) fixed-free All equations are assembled and solved with a special
conditions. computer program19•
Tables 1-a and 1-h show the configurations· and
16.00
equations associated with the· stiffness and strength
criteria, for wood poles. Similarly Tables 2-a and 2-b 15.50
show the configurations and equations associated with 15.00
r. steel poles. These expressions are readily available in
literature 16- 18 •
.s"'"'
~

'"'
B
14.50
~
....--~ - ~
......--- ~

In each load category, the theoretical deflections (or

slopes) of the original tapered system are compared
0

....~
0
14.00
13.50
....- ---
r
with those of the equivalent system; the value of deq 13.00
is computed from the equality. Typical computation 12.50
for selected loadings is shown in tbe Appendix. The
12.00
process is repeated for the stret:t~th category. Tables 3 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
and 4 show the expressions obtained for deq in each Pole Height (ft)
case. It can be seen that diameters for cases involving
bending and torsion are identical since the form of Fig. 5 Equivalent diameters for wood poles
··,'!:.
..

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

DEFLECTIONS

. Equation for Deflection or Slope

Equivalent Constant Section
Equation for Deflection or Slope
Oridnal Tapered Solid beam at Free End at Free End
Beam
Col. (1) Col. (2)
1.
[ ::r-N il = NL I EAa [In (l+r)lr] I 1-N il =NL I EAeq

2.

3.
[ I
tp il = P£3l3Ela [dt/daP
I
~pM
r il = P£3 I 3Eleq
I

[ C)M 8 = MLI1.075 E/0 [di/da ]1.587 I· O=ML/ Eleq

4. fiiiiiiiiW
f I I I I I I IIW il = wL4 I 7.872 E/0 [db I d0 ] 3282 tl = wL4f&Eleq
[ :::1 I I
5.

E 3~T 8- 321/J TL!:Jr Gda4

I ICT 8-32 TL/n G deq4

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

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 509

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012
 TABLE 1-B EQUNALENCY CONCEPT FOR SOLID (WOOD} POLES
STRENGTHS
Oridnal Tapered Solid beam Equation for Strength Equivalent Constant Section Beam Equation for Strength
Col. (3) Col. (4)
. .
6. Per= ([diJdaJ2-61 ;r2 ~ /,/4£2) I 1-N Per -;r2 E!eq14L2
: [ ::J-N
7. a=32 Ml:~rdx3 a= 32M/ ;r deq3
dp
:
tp
.• i
I '
[ i:X :

..
8. a=4wL2/;r dx3 a=3~ M/;r deq3
. [ QM I ~M
lX
i

9. a 4wL2/:~rdi I I I I I I I IIW a 4wL2/;rdeq3

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

10.

~
'
(T
'f;, 16T /;rdx3
I II cr '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
.. Equation for Deflection or Slope Equation for Deflection or Slope
at Free End Equivalent Constant Section at Free End
Oridnal Tapered Hollow Beam
Hollow Beam
Col. (5) Col. (6)
1.
[ :::.1-N A NL I EAa [In (l+r)lr] II 11-N A NL/ EAeq

2.

[ '
'
:X
Jp A=rJ PL3f2E C t [rbl raP II
:

i r A = P£3 /3Eleq

3.
[ ! QM (} =. [ML/2ECt]* [(ra + rb)/ ra2
II f'M O=MLI Eleq
rb2]
'X

4.
~ I I !If I I 2, w A=~ w£4 I 2E C t [rb-ra]4
IIIIIIIIIW

I II . V:,£4/SEIeq
A=
'X

5.

~
:x
e () = [TLI GJa]* 1/J
II II ~T (J=TLI GJeq

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 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38. No.6. FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012
 TABLE2-B EQUIVALENCY CONCEPT FOR HOLLOW (STREEL) POLES
STRENGTHS
Equation for Strength Equivalent Constant Section Equation for Stre
Oridnal Tapered Hollow beam
Col. (7) Hollow Beam Col. (8)
6.
[ l+-N Per= ([di/daJ2·61 n2 E lj4L2) I 1-N Per= n 2 E Ieq I
7.
Jp ;
tp
[ i:X a=PLI2Sx
I :
a= PL/2 Se~

8.
S\M I ~M
[
:X a=MI Sx ! a= M/ Seq

9. I I I I I I I IIW
f I I !!1 I I IIW
[ !'x J
a= 4 wL2 I n'dx3
I i I a= 4 wL2 In'

f
10.
~
:X
=0 r = 16 TIn d,X3
I I (T r= l6Tind

All bending and shesr stresses refer to mid-span.

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

TABLE3
it referred to axial compressive load for
EQUIVALENT DIAMETER FOR SOLID (WOOD)
POLES pole. Equivalent diameters determined frc
Load Expression for Equivalent Dilm:_).eter deq perspectives came from bending stress for W•
Case# Stiffness Criteria
and axial compressive stress for steel poles.
Strength Ch.teria
1 [r/ln (l+r)]O.SO da [db2.67 dal.33]0.25 19
2 [db3 da]0.25 Y:z (1+,8) da 18
[1.075 db!.581 d}.413]0.25 L:-:
3
4 [0.984 db3.282 da0.718]0.25
Y:z (1+,8) da ..-._ 17
3!:) 16
v
Y:z ( 1+,8) da
/
v
5 [3,83/l + ,8 + ,82]0.25 da Y:z (1+,8) da 0 15
0~ 14
/
~
TABLE4 EQUIVALENT DIAMETER FOR HOLLOW /
13
(STEEL) POLES 12 v
Load Expression for Equivalent Diameter deq 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Case# Pole Height (ft)
Stiffness Criteria Strength Criteria
1 [rlln (I+ r)] da [db2.61 dal.33]0.33 Fig. 6 Equivalent diameters for steel poles
2 [(5.34!1]) (rb- ra)3]0.33 Y:z ( 1+,8) Ja
For example, the maximum equivalent di<
3 2.52*[ra2 rb2! ra + rb]0.33 Y2 (1+,8) da a 55 ft wood pole is 14.11 "and that of a sir
4 [(l/8;) (db- da)4]0.33 Y2 (1+,8) da pole is 13.46". These values are shown on I
5 [3,83/l + ,8 + ,82]0.33 da Y:z (1+,8) da Fig. 6, respectively.

It is observed that for wood poles, the maximum Applications

equivalent diameter from deflection point of view The above model is applied to four transmis:
corresponded to the case with uniform load whereas each in wood and steel, sizes ranging from 5

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERIN<

TT • ,..,... ..,.T ~ T"'T""'T"\'nTT4n"Cr , . . . 'n,..,TT,..,A1
 ft (16.5 m to 25.5 m). Steel and Wood pole properties standard 14; the flat faces provide· means for welding
are obtained from Catalog20 and RUS Bulletin21 , connector plates and attaching insulator hardware and
respeCtively. For HV (high-voltage) transmission climbing grips. Steel section properties used in this
lines, 12-sided (dodecagonal) steel poles are industry study therefore refer to 12-sided poles.

1000 lbs
da = 8.6"·
0.5'
o- 1000lbs

/
1000 lbs

variable

db = variable

z variable

T
Wood Pole

All Poles are Southern Pine, MOR = 8000 psi, E = 1.8 X 10 6 psi

55-ft Class-1 Pole 65-ft Class-1 Pole 75-ft Class-1 Pole 85-ft Class-1 Pole
Mcap at GL = 204 kip-ft Mcap at GL = 242 kip-ft Mcap at GL = 284 kip-ft Mcapat GL = 322 kip-ft .

(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
 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
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.

1000 lbs
.--
·~ da = 7.25"
,__ 0.5'

,__ !-----1 0- 1000 lbs

r-
/
1000 lbs
r-
r-
-
¢:::
;g"'
I
-
,__
0
......
variable

f-- t = 3/16"
f--
f--
f---
f--- :,f
/// db =variable

z
variable

~ LJ
T

Steel Pole
L

All Poles are Galvanized Steel, Yield Strength = 65 ksi, E = 29 x 106 psi

55-ft Class- I Pole 65-ft Class- I Pole 75-ft Class-! Pole 85-ft Class-! Pole
Mcap at GL = 132 kip-ft Mcap at GL ~ 156 kip-ft Mcap at GL= 181 kip-ft 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 513

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012
 1000 lbs

0.5'

0 - - 1000lbs

/
1000 lbs

variable

deq = variable

z variable

Wood Pole

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

55-ft Class-! Pole 65-ft Class-! Pole 75-ft Class-! Pole 85-ft Class-! Pole
Mcap at GL = 184 kip-ft Mcap at GL= 195 kip-ft Mcap at GL = 205 kip-ft 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 A detailed discussion of the PLS modeling

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.
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

514 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012
 1000 lbs

0 -IOOOlbs

/
1000 lbs

deq = variable

z
variable

Steel Pole
L

All Poles are Gaivanized Steel, Yield Strength= 65 ksi, E = 29 X 106 psi

55-ft Class-1 Pole 65-ft Class-! Pole. 75-ft Class-1. Pole 85-ft Class-1 Pole
Mcap at GL = 154 kip-ft M.:ap at GL = 192 kip-ft Mcap at GL = 234 kip-ft 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 Steel Poles: Total Pole Top Deflection under Ev
not considered in this present study; but some oft-cited (Normal) Loading (No Wind, No Ice) not to ex'
limits are as follows: of the pole height above ground

Wood Poles; Total Pole Top Deflection under Extreme Concrete Poles; Total Pole Top Deflectior
Wind Loading (90 mph or 145 kph) not to exceed 15% Every Day (Normal) Loading (No Wind, No Icc
of the pole height above ground. exceed 5% of the pole height above ground
 TABLES-A DATA OF ANALYZED 55-FT POLES
ACTUAL ·EQUIVALENT
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 EQUIVALENT
Pole Diameter (in) Deft (in) Total Stress (ksi) Diameter (in) Deft (in) Total Stress (ksi)
Top GL Top • GL** Top and GL Top* GL**
Wood 8,60 15.45 63.1 3.29 14.37 36.7 3.47
Steel 7.25 13.84 39.5 38.1 14.82 25.0 37.7

TABLE 5-C DATA OF ANALYZED 75-FT POLES

ACTUAL EQUIVALENT
Pole Diameter (in) 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 EQUIVALENT
Pole Diameter (in) Deft (in) Total Stress (ksi) Diameter (in) Deft (in) Total Stress (ksi)
.·.~t
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 Steel Poles

The equivalent diameters of all four poles analyzed were

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.
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

516 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012
 reasonably accurate, quick modeling of transmission => 1.233 del= 6.58 [rb- ra] 31'7
poles. Further studies in that direction are needed to or
generalize the observations made herein. A larger
sample of poles with varied loading conditions can del= 5.34 [rb- ra] 31'7
help expand the concept introduced here. A parameter => deq = [5.34 [rb- raJ31q] 113
study with various pole sizes and configurations can where; 'J = [2 In (r~ra)]- [(rb- ra)lrb] * [3- (rafrb,)]
be undertaken for a larger database of observations,
which can then be synthesized statistically to evolve Nomenclature
adjustment factors for deflections and/or stresses.
Consideration of pole tip deflection constraints may f3 = (d~da)
aJso help in developing a more complete structural
'J,~ parameters as defined in Table 2-a, b
~quivalent pole.
·· For this paper, the initial focus was on constant tjJ = parameter as defined in Table 1-a
thickness steel poles to simplify computations. Variable a Bending Stress
thickness may be considered in subsequent editions. 7:' = Shear Stress
Wood and steel poles are studied here but the ideas are
Aa Area at top= 1t di/4, Ab =Area at bottom
also applicable to concrete and fiberglass (composite)
= 1t dil4 ~wood)
systems. The concept can eventually be employed
to determine buckling loads of guyed poles by using Aa = Area at top= 3.22 da t, Ab =Area at bottom
constant section FE models. = 3.22 db t (steel)
EI Flexural Stiffness
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS da Diameter at Pole Top
db = Diameter at Pole Bottom (ground line)
The author wishes to acknowledge the facilities
· deq Diameter of Equivalent Pole
provided by Allgeier, Martin and Associates, Inc.
during the duration of this study. 'it dx Diameter at Pole at Mid Span or Height
E Modulus of Elasticity
APPENDIX Fb Maximum Bending Stress
Fy Yield Stress of Steel
~erivation of Eq,uivalent Diameter for Case 2 (Solid
fole) G Shear Modulus

Equating col. (1) and (2) from Table 1-a: Ia Moment ofinertia at Pole Top= 1t da2164
(wood)
t1 = PL 3 I 3Ela [db I daJ3 = PL3 I 3Eleq
leq Moment of Inertia of Equivalent Pole = 1t
or, la [db ldaP -Ieq da 2164 (wood)
Using Ia = 1t da 4164 and Ieq =% deq4164, we have: Ia Moment of Inertia at top = 0.411 da 3t
deq4~da db3 (steel)
leq Moment of Inertia of Equivalent Pole =
=> deq = [da db 3 ]~
0.411 deq3 t (steel)
Derivation of Equivalent Diameter for Case 2 (Hollow Ja Polar Moment of Inertia at Pole Top= 2*1a
Pole) = n d/4132 (wood)

Equating col. (1) and (2) from Table 2-a: Ja Polar Moment oflnertia at Pole Top= 2*Ia
= 0.822 da3 t (steel)
t1 ='I PL 3 I 2 E C t [rb- raP= PL 313 Eleq L Length of Pole
or
M Moment
2 (3.29) t [rb- raP I '7 = 3Ieq = 3 (0.411 delt) N Axial Load

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 517

Vol. 38, No.(!, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012
 p = Lateral Load ·
r parameter as defined in Table 1-a
Ya Pole Radius at Top
rb Pole Radius at Bottom (ground line)
t Thickness of Steel Pole
Sa Section 'Modulus at Pole Top = n da3132
(wood)
Seq = Section Modulus of Equivalent Pole = n
dell32 (wood)
Sa = Section Modulus at top = 0.822 da2t (steel)
Seq Section Modulus of Equivalent Pole =
0.822 deit (steel)
T Torsion
w uniform load on beam
J,mFERENCES
1. Technical Overview, Shakespeare Composite
Structures, Newberry, South Carolina, 2003 USA.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Flodin J., "Deflections of Beams of Varying
Moment ofinertia," Jl., ofAmer. Soc. ofNautical
Engg., Vol. 69, 1957, pp 511-514.
5. Kemper, J.D., Large Deflections of Tapered
Cantilevered Beams, Inti. Jl., of Mech. Sci., Vol.
10, 1968, pp 469-478.
6. Ali, R., "Derivation of Stiffuess Matrix for a
Tapered Beam Element", Dept. of Transport
Tech., Loughborough Univ. ofTech., 1970, UK. ·
7. 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.
8. Aristizabal-Ochoa, J.D., Tapered Beam and
Column Elements in Un-bracedFramedStructures,
518 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 38, No.6, FEBRUARY- MARCH 2012
View publication stats
Jl. ofComput. in CE, ASCE, Vol. 1, No.1, 1987,
pp 35-49.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Lemaster, R., Vichien, N. and Theiss, T., Elastic-
Plastic Analysis of Tubular Transmission
Structures, Comp. and Structs., Vol. 28, No. 5,
1988, pp 603-620.
12. Li, G-Q. and Li, J-J., A Tapered Timoshenko-
Euler Beam Element for Analysis of Steel Portal
Frames, J/., of Const. Steel Res., AISC, Vol. 58,
2002, pp 1531-1544.
13. Sapalas, V., Samofalov, M. 'and Saraskinas,
S., FEM Stability Analysis of Tapered Beam-
Columns, Jl, of Civil Engg. and Mgmt, VGTU,
Vilnius, Lithuania, 2005, pp 211-216.
14. Manual48-05, Design ofSteel Transmission Pole
Structures, 2006, ASCE.
15. 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)
I
j