Transmission Mono Poles-SERC

Advanced Course on Communication and Power Transmission Towers
6-8 February 2013, CSIR-SERC, Chennai - 113, India. pp 323-371.

STEEL MONOPOLES
R. Balagopal
Scientist, Tower Testing and Research Station,
CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, CSIR Campus, Taramani,
Chennai 600113, INDIA.
Email: bala@serc.res.in
1. INTRODUCTION
Generally, the self supporting lattice type towers are most commonly used for power
transmission. In a fast developing country faced with density of population in the urban
areas, great diffculties are experienced in fnding corridor (land) for new transmission
lines. It is very diffcult to get land for installation of conventional lattice towers for
power transmission. Power utilities throughout the world are making diverse attempts
to make compact lines. Compaction of a transmission line means reduction in the
dimension of a line both in horizontal and vertical direction. By horizontal compaction
power density over available corridors is increased by more effcient use of land and
Right Of Way (ROW). Poles are suitable alternate supports to the conventional lattice
towers. Steel poles have smaller plan dimension and are composed of only few pieces,
compared to the lattice type towers. Poles are generally tapered and manufactured in
number of pieces which can slip in to each other to form the entire pole structure. The
pole circumference thickness is varied for each pole segment along the pole height to
obtain a lighter structure. The pole cross section may have a rectangular, circular or
regular polygonal shape of 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24 sided. Pole structures having polygonal
cross sections with larger number of sides have larger fexural capacity for a specifed
circumference thickness. For pole structures of same fexural capacity, ones having
larger base diameter to circumference thickness ratios and designed to utilize the full
yield strength of the material are lighter. The pole structures are either connected by
a base plate and anchor bolts to the foundation or directly embedded in to the soil
or into a drilled concrete foundation. Poles with direct embedment foundations might
have smaller base diameter than those with traditional base plate - anchor bolt type
foundations to reduce the negative effect of extra weight, resulting from the additional
pole length used for embedment.
2.0 INITIAL DESIGN CONSIDEARIONS
Geometry:
The basic pole structure confguration, conductor and shielding geometry insulation
324 Advanced Course on Communication and Power Transmission Towers
assembly length, swing angles, electrical clearances and shielding angles shall be
determined. It is important to note that a critical loading condition may depend on the
type of tubular pole structure confguration being considered.
Stress analysis:
The structure designer will normally need to consider the effects of large defections
during the design. A secondary moment will develop when a structural member having
an axial force defects in a direction normal to the line of action of the force. The
additional stress caused by this secondary moment is dependent on the magnitude of the
axial force and the defected shape of the member.
Clearences:
Clearances from conductors to supporting structures, ground or edge of right-of-way are
usually not affected signifcantly by defections except perhaps where special span and
line angle conditions exist.
Appearance:
Line angles and unbalanced phase arrangements create load situations which will cause
a pole to appear bowed. There are several methods that can be used to minimize the
appearance problem. One method is to camber the pole to offset the defection under
this load so that it will appear straight and plumb. Another method is to rake the pole
when setting it. The defection at the top is determined for everyday loading. A pole can
be designed to limit defection by increasing its stiffness.
Other considerations:
Pole structures should be considered fexible and relatively large defections can result
due to loads. Defections can affect the magnitude of loads caused by an unbalanced
longitudinal loading situation. The defection of the structure and the swing of
suspension insulators can signifcantly decrease wire tensions. Line spans, location of
strain structures, structure fexibility, wire tensions and insulator lengths are some of the
variables needed in the analysis to determine equivalent static loads.
Construction, fnish and Transportation:
The specifcation should include possible limits due to equipment, access limitations,
methods of hauling, assembly, erection, stringing or one circuit installed for the present
with provisions for future circuits. Rigging attachment points should be provided for
lifting the structure, hoisting insulators and stringing blocks, stringing, clipping in,
deadending and maintenance. Special consideration should be given in the structure
design for helicopter erection. The type of corrosion protection may limit structure
design concepts. As an example, the diameter, length or weight of a pole section may be
limited to ft available galvanizing kettle capabilities.
Steel Monopoles 325
Climbing and maintenance:
The line designer should identify climbing, working and hot line maintenance provisions
required. Generally, provisions should be made so that all parts of pole structures and insulator
and hardware assemblies can be reached for maintenance. Detachable ladders should be
fabricated in lengths which can be handled by line maintenance personnel on the structure.
Load testing :
Consideration should be given to the full-scale structure testing which may be required.
The necessity to perform a test may be to adequately verify the design concept, to verify
connection details and to determine the level of reliability.
Stability and Fatigue analysis:
Stability should be provided for the structure as a whole and for each structural element.
Consideration should be given to load effects resulting from the defected shape of the
structure. Generally speaking, rigorous fatigue stress analyses of steel pole structure
have proven unnecessary.
Modeling:
It is important that the structure be accurately modeled for computer analyses. Finite
element models should contain a suffcient number of elements to ensure that the
curvature of members in the defected position is adequately represented and the point
of maximum stress is adequately defned.
3.0 ASCE/SEI 48-05 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The design stresses for members is based on ultimate strength methods using the factored
loads.
Material Stress: The yield stress F
y
, and the tensile stress, F
u
, shall be the specifed
minimum values specifed in ASTM standard. The modulus of Elasticity of Steel is
defned as, 200 GPa.
I) Tension:
The tensile stress shall not exceed either of the following;

( ) ; ;
( ) ; .
a
b
P
A
F F F
P
A
F F F
g
t t y
g
t t u

where or
where 0 83
where F
t
is the permitted tensile stress; F
y
is the specifed minimum yield stress; F
u
is
the specifed minimum tensile stress; P is the axial tension force in the member; A
g
is
the gross cross-sectional area; and A
n
is the net cross-sectional area.
II) COMPRESSION:
The tubular members subjected to compressive forces shall be checked for general
stability and local buckling. The compressive stresses shall not exceed the limiting
stress values defned in the following sections.
a) Truss members with closed cross section:
For truss members with closed cross section, the actual compressive stress, f
a
, shall not
exceed the permissible compressive stress, F
a
, as determined by the following.
i) F F
KL
r
C
KL
r
C
a y
c
c
= -
\
]
]
]
)
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
1 0 5
2
. , when
ii) F
E
KL
r
KL
r
C C
E
F
a c c
y
=
\
]

)
]
> =
2
2
2
, , when where
where, F
a
is the permissible compressive stress; F
y
is the specifed minimum yield
stress; E is the modulus of elasticity; L is the unbraced length; , is the radius of
gyration; and K is the effective length factor.
KL
r
is the largest slenderness ratio of any
unbaked segment.
a) Beam Members:
The limiting values of w/t and D
0
/t specifed in the following section may be exceeded
without requiring a reduction in extreme fbre stress if local buckling stability is
demonstrated by adequate experimental test.
i) Regular Polygonal Members: For formed, regular polygonal tubular members,
the compressive stress P A Mc I + , on the extreme fber shall not exceed the
following;
Octagonal, hexagonal, or rectangular members (bent angle 450)
F F
w
t
F
a y
y
= , when
260O
F F F
w
t
F
w
t
F
a y y
y y
= - <
\
]

)
] 1 42 1 0 0 00114
1 260 351
. . . ,
O
O O
when
F
w
t
w
t
F
a
y
=
\
]

)
]
>
1 04 980 351
2
, ,
,
4 O
when
Steel Monopoles 327
Dodecagonal members (bent angle =30
o
)
F F
w
t
F
a y
y
= , when
260O
F F F
w
t
F
w
t
F
a y y
y y
= -
\
]

)
]
< 1 45 1 0 0 00129
1 260 374
. . . ,
O
O O
when
F
w
t
w
t
F
a
y
=
\
]

)
]
>
1 04 980 374
2
, ,
,
4 O
when
Hexdecagonal members (bent angle =22.5
o
)
F F
w
t
F
a y
y
= , when
215O
F F F
w
t
F
w
t
F
a y y
y y
= - <
\
]

)
] 1 42 1 0 0 00137
1 215 412
. . . ,
O
O O
when
F
w
t
w
t
F
a
y
=
\
]

)
]
>
1 04 980 412
2
, ,
,
4 O
when
where, F
y
a
is the permitted compressive stress;
w is the fat width of a side; t is the wall thickness; O = 2.62 for F
y
or F
a
in MPa; and
4 = 6.90 for F
a
in MPa.
ii) Rectangular Members: The permissible stress specifed for octagonal, hexagonal
members is used. If the permissible stress value exceeds 6.9 MPa, then the equations
for dodecagonal members are used.
iii) Polygonal Elliptical Members: The bend angle and fat width associated with
elliptical cross section are not constant. The smallest bend angle associated with a
particular fat shall be used to determine the compressive stress permitted.
iv) Round Members: For round members or polygonal members with more than
sixteen sides, the compressive stress shall not exceed the following
f
F
f
F
a
a
b
b
+ 1
;
Where f
a
is the compressive stress due to axial load; f
b
is the compressive stress due
to bending; F
a
is the permitted compressive stress; and F
b
is the permissible bending
stress.
Permissible Compressive Stress: F
a
F F
D
t F
a y
O
y
= when and
38004
;
F F
D
t
F
D
t F
a y
O
y
O
y
= + < 0 75
950 3800 12 000
. ;
, 4 4 4
when
Permissible Bending Stress:
Fb
F F
D
t F
b y
O
y
= when and
60004
;
F F
D
t
F
D
t F
a y
O
y
O
y
= + < 0 70
1600 6000 12 000
. ;
, 4 4 4
when
where D
0
is the outside diameter of the tubular section (fat to fat outside diameter for
polygonal members); t is the wall thickness; and 4 = 6.90 for F
y
, F
b
or F
a
is in MPa.
III) Shear: The shear stress resulting from applied shear forces, torsional shear, or a
combination of the two shall not exceed the following:
VQ
Ib
Tc
J
F F F
v v y
+ = ; . where 0 58
where, F
y
y
is the permitted shear stress; V is the
shear force; Q is the moment of section about neutral axis; I is the moment of inertia;
T is the torsional moment; J is the torsional moment of cross section; c is the distance
from neutral axis to extreme fber; and b equals 2 times the wall thickness.
IV) Bending: The stress resulting from bending shall not exceed either of the
following;
Mc
I
F
Mc
I
F
t a
or
where F
t
a
is the permitted compressive stress; L is the
moment of inertia; M is the bending moment; and c is the distance from neutral axis to
extreme fber.
V) Combined Stresses: For a polygonal member, the combined stress at any point on
the cross section shall not exceed the following;
P
A
M c
I
M c
I
VQ
It
Tc
J
F F
x y
x
y x
y
t
+ +
\
]
]

)
]
]
+ +
\
]

)
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

2
2
1
2
3 or
aa
For round members, the combined stress at any point on the cross section shall not
exceed the following:
P
A
M c
I
M c
I
VQ
It
Tc
J
F or F
x y
x
y x
y
t
+ +
\
]
]

)
]
]
+ +
\
]

)
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

2
2
1
2
3
bb
where F
t
a
is the permitted compressive stress; F
b
is
the permitted bending stress; P is the axial force in the member; A is the cross sectional
Steel Monopoles 329
area; M
x
is the bending moment about X-X axis; M
y
is the bending moment about Y-Y
axis; is the moment of inertia about X-X axis; I
x
is the moment of inertia about Y-Y axis;
c
x
is the distance from Y-Y axis to the point where stress is checked; c
y
is the distance
from X-X axis to the point where stress is checked; V is the shear force; Q is the moment
of section about neutral axis; I is the moment of inertia; T is the torsional moment of
cross section; J is the torsional moment of cross section; c is the distance from neutral
axis to the point where stress is checked; and t equals wall thickness.
VI) Slip Joint: Slip joint in poles shall be designed to resist maximum forces and
moments in the connection. As a maximum, slip joints shall be designed to resist
50% of the moment capacity of the lower strength tube. The taper should be the
same above and below the slip joint.
VII) Base Plate and Flange Plate connections: Flexural stress in the base or fange
plate shall not exceed the specifed minimum yield stress, of the plate material. The
base and fange plate connections shall be designed to resist 50% of the moment
capacity of the lowest strength tube.
VIII) Design of Anchor Bolts: The anchor bolts shall be designed to transfer the tensile,
compressive, and shear loads to the concrete by adequate embedment length or by
the end connection.
i) Bolts subject to tension: The bolts subject to designed to resist the sum of the tensile
stresses caused by the external loads and any tensile stress resulting from prying
action shall not exceed the permissible stress, F
t
, as fows:
For bolts with specifed proof load stress, F
t
is the lowest of yield stress F
y
or
0.83F
u
, where F
u
is the specifed minimum tensile stress of the bolt. For bolts with no
specifed yield stress,
F
t
= 0.83 F
u
;
Thus
T
A
F
s
s
t
= ; where the stress area A
s
is given by;
where T
s
is the bolt tensile force; d is the nominal diameter of the bolt; and n is the
number of threads per unit of length.
ii) Shear Stress: The shear stress for anchor bolts shall be determined as follows:
V
A
F F
s
v y
=0 65 .
where is the shear force on bolt;
A d
n
s
= -
\
]

)
]
4
0 9743
2
.
, tensile stress of bolt; F
y
is the
shear stress permitted; F
y
is the specifed minimum yield stress of bolt material; d is the
nominal diameter of the bolt; and n is the number of threads per unit of length.
iii) Combined Shear and Tension: For bolts subject to combined shear and tension, the
permitted axial tensile stress in conjunction with shear stress, F
t(v)
shall be,
F F
f
F
t v t
v
v
( )
= -
\
]

)
] 1
2
;
where F
v
is the permitted shear stress; F
t
is the tensile stress permitted; and f
v
is the
shear stress on effective area. The combined tensile and shear stress shall be taken at the
same cross section in the bolt.
iv) Development Length: The minimum clear cover for concrete is specifed as 76mm.
The development length for the threaded reinforcing bar used as anchor bolts shall
be calculated as follows;
L l
d d
= . . . o J ,
where L
d
is the minimum development length of anchor bolt; and l
d
is the basic
development length for the bolt shall be taken as;
For bars upto and including #11 (i.e upto 35.7 mm bar), use the larger of
l
A F
f
l dF
d
g y
y
d y
= =
1 27
0 400
.
.
'
!
4 or
For # 14 bars (43.7 mm bars),
l
F
f
d
y
y
=
2 69 .
'
O
;
For #18 and #18J bars (56.4 mm bars),
l
F
f
d
y
y
=
3 52 .
'
O
;
where A
g
is the gross area of anchor bolt; A
s req d ( ' )
is the required tensile stress of bolt;
F
y
is the specifed minimum yield stress of anchor bolt; f
c
'
is the specifed compressive
strength of concrete; d is the diameter of the bolt; ! =0.0150 for F
y
and f
c
'
in MPa and
A
g
in mm
2
, O =9.67 for F
y
and f
c
'
in MPa; o =1.0 if F
y
in 414 MPa or 1.2 if F
y
in 517
MPa; J =0.8 for bolt spacing upto and including 152 mm, or 1.0 for bolt spacing less
than 152 mm;
,=A A
s req d g ( ' )
.
IX) Stress concentrations:
Care must be taken to distribute loads suffciently to protect the pole wall against local
failure. Slip joints, arm to pole connections and abrupt changes in members cross
section or longitudinal axis are points of susceptibility.
4. ANALYSIS
Stress calculations for transmission structures have traditionally been based on elastic
analysis. The design criteria presented in ASCE/SEI 48-05 is based on elastic stress
analysis methods. Stability should be provided for the structure as a whole and for
each structural element. The response of tubular transmission structures to applied
loads is generally nonlinear in nature. The standard industrial practice in design is
Steel Monopoles 331
to use nonlinear fnite element based computer programs. These computer programs
consider the effects of large displacements and dependence of the structures stiffness
on member stress levels and are capable of computing elastic stability phenomena.
For pole structures the refned fnite element models are necessary for the static and
buckling analysis since a high level of accuracy is required at specifc critical locations.
For pole structures a seismic analysis produces no critical response. Analysis programs
have virtually eliminated the use of linear analysis methods for most design work,
However, some preliminary design and estimating work might still be accomplished by
using linear analysis methods by assuming a defected position or by using amplifcation
factors on moments.
5. TYPICAL FABRICATION AND ERECTION DETAILS:
Slip splices :
Sections jointed by telescoping splices should be detailed for a nominal lap that will
assure a minimum lap of 1.35 times the largest inside diameter. A commonly used
practice is to specify a nominal lap 1.5 times the largest inside diameter of the female
section and allow a 10% tolerance on the fnal assembled lap length. Supplemental
locking devices are needed if relative movement of the joint is critical or if the joint
might be subjected to uplift forces. In resisting uplift forces, locking devices should be
designed to resist 100% of the maximum uplift load. The female section longitudinal
seam welds in the splice area should be complete penetration welds for at least a length
equal to the maximum lap dimension.
Circumferential welded splices:
Complete penetration welds should be used for sections joined by circumferential
welds. Longitudinal welds within 75mm of circumferential welds should also be
complete penetration welds.
Welded T joint connections:
Pole shaft to base plate welds, pole shaft to fange plate welds and arm to arm bracket
welds are quite commonly T joint connections. Where the primary loads carried by the
pole or arm are fexural, a groove weld with reinforcing fllet is recommended to satisfy
the requirements for through - thickness stresses in the attachment plate.
Hole size:
Typically, holes 3mm larger than the nominal bolt diameter are used except for anchor
bolt holes. Anchor bolt holes in the base plate are normally 10mm oversize.
6. FOUNDATION TYPES:
Steel pole structures can be installed using drilled shaft, direct embedded pile or spread
footings. The soil condition will often dictate the best type to install. The base size of the
structure or the available equipment may limit the foundation type.
Caisson:
Caisson foundations are particularly effective in areas where the augured holes collapse
or soft cohesive soils tend to slump or squeeze inward and reduce the diameter of the
hole. The caisson should be provided with adjusting bolts at the top to plumb the pole
into place.
Direct embedment:
The bottom portion of the pole becomes the foundation member reacting against the
soil. The length of the section of the pole below the ground line should be determined
using a lateral resistance approach.
Reinforced concrete drilled foundation:
An anchor bolt cage set in a reinforced concrete drilled foundation is a very popular
foundation. The minimum foundation diameter is determined by the diameter of the
bolt circle.
Pile foundation:
The purpose of the pile foundation is to transfer the loads from the pole down to the
denser underlying soil or rock. The skin friction of the pile is used to resist uplift. The
most common piles are steel H-piles, wood pile and prestressed concrete.
Stem and pad foundation (spread):
The stem and pad foundation is a basic spread footing. It is used in areas where drilled
holes cave easily. Spread footings are designed to resist compression from axial loads
and overturning moment from horizontal loads.
Rock anchors:
Rock anchors can be designed to resist uplift, compression, horizontal shear and in
some cases, bending moments.
7.0 COMPARATIVE STUDY
To compare the structural behavior of lattice tower and pole structure, the static and
dynamic performance of 30m and 40m Mw monopole is compared with corresponding
30m and 40m high square is considered in the present study.
Steel Monopoles 333
a) 30m and 40m high self supporting Mw monopole.
The confguration, dimensions and load application details for 30m and 40m High Mw
monopole is shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. The main shaft of both 30m and 40m High Mw
Monopole is of twenty sided polygonal (20 sided regular polygon) in shape and made of four
segments with bottom two segments of 8mm thick and the top two segments are of 6mm
thick. These segments are joined by telescopic slip splice joint with minimum lap length of
1.35 times the largest inside diameter of the pole [ASCE Manual No: 72]. The diameter of the
shaft is 900mm at the bottom and 150mm at the top for 40m high self supporting monopole,
while the diameter of the shaft is 800mm at the bottom and 150mm at the top for 30m high
self supporting monopole. The base plate is of 48mm thick welded to the bottom of the shaft.
The main shaft is made of material Fe-490 with 350 MPa yield stress and base plate with
yield stress of 250 MPa. The pole has been designed for a wind speed of 33 m/s and Terrain
Category -2. The wind load on 40m and 30m high monopole is calculated based on IS: 875
(Part 3): 1987. NE-NASTRAN, a non-linear FE software is used for modeling both 30m
and 40m high Mw monopole. In the FE model, four noded plate shell elements are used for
modeling the main shaft, stiffeners and base plate. The FE Model for 30m and 40m high self
supporting pole is shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 respectively. The elastic plastic material property
of steel was represented by an elastic-plastic bi-linear model, with the modulus of elasticity
as 2E5 upto yield and 2000 MPa above yield stress. Eigenvalue analysis for both the pole
structures has been carried out and the deformed FE model of both the pole structures are
shown in Fig 5 and Fig 6. Both the wind load the antennae loads has been applied on the pole
structures at equi-distant intervals along the height of the pole and the defected FE model for
both the pole structures is shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 respectively.
500
C/S OF 20 S IDE D
POLYGONAL POLE
8

t
k
1
6

t
k
8

t
k
1
6

t
k
6

t
k
1
2

t
k
6

t
k
4. 89 kN
BAS IC POLE
CONFIGUR ATION
WIND LOAD +
ANTE NNAE LOAD
30m MW MONOPOLE
All dimensions are
in mm
7200
1100
6130
1070
6170
1060
30000
7270
4. 80 kN
2. 53 kN
2. 47 kN
2. 53 kN
2. 54 kN
2. 53 kN
2. 37 kN
4. 89 kN
2. 48 kN
800
Fig. 1 General confguration of 30m High Mw Monopole
7600
6600
6600
7600
7600
500
1200
1000
1200
600
900
C/S OF 20 S IDE D
POLYGONAL POLE
8

t
k
8

t
k
1
6

t
k
1
4

t
k
6

t
k
1
2

t
k
6

t
k
1
2

t
k
6

t
k
5. 75 kN
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
5. 62 kN
3. 19 kN
3. 33 kN
3. 35 kN
3. 31 kN
3. 23 kN
3. 13 kN
3. 02 kN
2. 91 kN
BAS IC POLE
CONFIGUR ATION
WIND LOAD +
ANTE NNAE LOAD
40m MW MONOPOLE
All dimensions are
in mm
40000
Fig. 2 General confguration of 40m High Mw Monopole
Fig. 3 FE Model (30m Mw Monopole)
Steel Monopoles 335
Fig. 4 FE Model (40m Mw Monopole)
Fig. 5 Deformed FE Model of 30m Mw Monopole (First Mode)
Fig. 6 Deformed FE Model of 40m Mw Monopole (First Mode)
Fig. 7 Defected FE Model of 30m Mw Monopole
Steel Monopoles 337
Fig. 8 Deformed FE Model of 40m Mw Monopole
b) 30m and 40m high self supporting Mw lattice tower.
The confguration, dimensions and load application details for 30m and 40m High
Mw lattice tower is shown in Fig 9 and Fig. 10 Both the lattice towers have square
confguration with two slopes. The bottom and top widths of 40m Mw tower are 4.5m
and 1.5 m respectively. The 30m Mw tower has base width of 3.5m and top width of
1.5m . These lattice towers have been designed for a wind speed of 33 m/s and Terrain
Category -2. The wind load on 40m and 30m high lattice Mw tower is calculated based
on IS: 875 (Part 3): 1987 recommendations. NE-NASTRAN, a non-linear FE software
is used for modeling both 30m and 40m high lattice tower. In the FE model, two noded
beam column elements are used for modeling the main leg, bracing and tie members
of the tower. The undeformed FE Model of 30m and 40m high lattice tower is shown
in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 respectively. The elastic plastic material property of steel was
represented by an elastic-plastic bi-linear model, with the modulus of elasticity as 2E5
upto yield and 2000 MPa above yield stress. Eigenvalue analysis for both the lattice
tower has been carried out and the deformed FE model is shown in Fig. 13 and Fig. 14
respectively. Both the wind load and the antennae loads are applied at four noded point
load at the top of each panel. The static analysis has been carried out and the defected
FE model for both the lattice towers are shown in Fig. 15 and Fig. 16. respectively.
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
L
E
G

M
E
M
B
E
R
B
R
A
C
I
N
G

M
E
M
B
E
R
T
I
E

M
E
M
B
E
R
1
3
0
x
1
3
0
x
1
0
1
1
0
x
1
1
0
x
8
1
0
0
x
1
0
0
x
8
8
0
x
8
0
x
6
7
5
x
7
5
x
5
6
0
x
6
0
x
5
4. 92 kN
4. 84 kN
2. 48 kN
2. 56 kN
2. 64 kN
2. 84 kN
3. 16 kN
3. 24 kN
2. 56 kN
3. 92 kN
2. 72 kN
2. 64 kN
BAS IC TOWE R
CONFIGUR ATION
WIND LOAD +
ANTE NNAE LOAD
5
0
x
5
0
x
5
4
5
x
4
5
x
5 4
5
x
4
5
x
5
30m MW TOWE R
3500
1500
1500
30000
All dimensions are
in mm
Fig. 9 General confguration of 30m High Mw square lattice tower
4500
5000
2500
2500
2500
5000
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
40000
L
E
G

M
E
M
B
E
R
B
R
A
C
I
N
G

M
E
M
B
E
R
T
I
E

M
E
M
B
E
R
1
3
0
x
1
3
0
x
1
2
1
3
0
x
1
3
0
x
1
01
1
0
x
1
1
0
x
8
1
0
0
x
1
0
0
x
8
8
0
x
8
0
x
6
7
5
x
7
5
x
5
6
0
x
6
0
x
5
5. 12 kN
5. 08 kN
2. 72 kN
2. 84 kN
2. 96 kN
3. 24 kN
3. 40 kN
3. 36 kN
6. 84 kN
7. 36 kN
2. 72 kN
3. 28 kN
3. 08 kN
2. 92 kN
BAS IC TOWE R
CONFIGUR ATION
WIND LOAD +
ANTE NNAE LOAD
5
0
x
5
0
x
5
4
5
x
4
5
x
5
4
5
x
4
5
x
5
40m MW TOWE R
1500
1500
All dimensions are
in mm
Fig. 10 General confguration of 40m High Mw square lattice tower
Steel Monopoles 339
Fig. 11 FE Model (30m Mw lattice tower)
Fig. 12 FE Model (40m Mw lattice tower)
Fig. 13 Deformed FE Model of 30m Mw lattice tower (First Mode)
Fig. 14 Deformed FE Model of 40m Mw lattice tower (First Mode)
Steel Monopoles 341
Fig. 15 Defected FE Model of 30m Mw Monopole
Fig. 16 Deformed FE Model of 40m Mw Monopole
c) Wind and Antennae load calculation on Pole and lattice tower
a. Wind Load
The wind load on pole and lattice tower is calculated based on IS: 875 (Part 1)-1987.The
following design parameters are used for calculating the wind loads.
Basic Wind Speed: 33 m/s,
Terrain Category: 2,
Topography factor k3=1.0,
Risk coeffcient k1=1.05.
The design wind speed is calculated taking into account the terrain type, height of
the structure, topography, risk level for the structure. The wind load (F
p
) on the lattice
tower is calculated based on solidity ratio (), the geometry of the member sections
and the wind fow regime through the force co-effcient method. The wind pressure
and subsequent wind load calculation on pole structure depends upon the aerodynamic
effects of the pole structure. The solidity ratio () is defned as the ratio between the
effective area (A
e
) of the panel (areas of all members of the panel) projected on a plane
normal to the wind direction and the overall area (A
t
) of the panel. The effective area
(A
e
) does not include the projections of the bracing members from faces parallel to the
wind direction, plan and hip bracings. The wind load (F
p
) on the tower at height z is then
computed using the relation,
F
p
= C
f
P
z
A
e
(1)
where C
f
= force coeffcient; A
e
= effective frontal area at height z; P
z
= 0.6V
z
2
design
wind pressure in N/m
2
at height z and due to design wind velocity V
z
in m/sec. The
calculation details for design wind velocity V
z
is given IS 875 (Part 3): 1987.
The additional loading effects due to wind turbulence and dynamic amplifcation
in fexible structures such as guyed towers and pole structures is calculated using gust
factor G. When the fundamental frequency of the pole structure is less than 1Hz, then
dynamic loading analysis of the structure is recommended in codes of practice. The IS
code recommends simplifed method to calculate the peak response of wind resistance
structures.
F = C
f
A
e
P
z
G (2)
The gust factor G accounts for the dynamic effects of gust on wind response towers.
The values of these gust factors lies in the range of 1.5 to 2.5.The values of these gust
factors changes with wind speed, decreases with height and increases with increased
terrain roughness. The frequency of the pole structures is almost less than 1Hz, the wind
loads on these structures is calculated based on gust factor method. The wind loads
calculated based on this gust factor method is 35-25-30% higher when compared to
force-co-effcient method.
Steel Monopoles 343
b. Antennae Load
Both the pole and lattice structures are subjected to same antennae loads and the
defection behavior is compared. The loading details for antennae are as follows. There
are 3 nos. of GSM antennae of size 2.6m 0.3m at tower top and 3 nos. of CDMA
antennae of size 1.2m 0.3m at 3m down from tower top. The wind load due to these
antennae on the pole and lattice structure is calculated based on the exposed area of the
antennae.
d) Simplifed Numerical Model for steel pole and lattice tower
Generally, the lattice tower and pole structure represents a system with infnite degrees
of freedom. In this method, this structure is discretized into a simple model with multiple
degrees of freedom, thereby the continuum model is reduced to lower order discrete
mass model. The entire structure is discretized into n number of nodes, with their
masses lumped at these nodes. The free vibration equation of motion for an undamped
mutli degree of system is represented as,
M x K x

0 (3)
where [K] is the stiffness matrix, [M] is the mass matrix, {x} denotes the displacement
and x denotes the acceleration vectors of different degrees of freedom. The stiffness
matrix is obtained by evaluating the fexibility matrix, [F]. To obtain the fexibility
matrix, a unit horizontal load was applied at the node i and the displacement at node
j, is calculated, which is the f
ij
element of the fexibility matrix [F]. The stiffness
matrix [K] is obtained by inverting the fexibility matrix [F]. Equation (3) represents the
eigenvalue or characteristic equation of the structural system. The natural frequencies
and mode shapes are obtained by solving the eigenvalue equation.
For the numerical modeling, the entire lattice mast are discretized into fnite number
of elements. For the formulation of fexibility matrix , the average of combined moment
of inertia of all four leg members at bottom and top of the lattice mast is considered.
While formulating the mass matrix, uniform mass density and uniform combined area
of all the four leg members are considered. The fundamental frequency and mode shape
is obtained by solving the characteristic Eigenvalue equation.
The pole mast is descritized into fnite number of elements. The cross sectional area
and moment of inertia of the polygonal pole at bottom and top of the pole mast is
calculated based on ASCE Manual No: 72 formulae with average thickness is considered.
In the fexibility matrix formulation, the average moment of inertia at bottom and top of
the pole is considered. For mass matrix formulation, average density and average cross
sectional area at bottom and top of the pole is considered. The fundamental frequency
and mode shape is obtained by solving the characteristic Eigen value equation.
e) Defection Comparison.
The maximum defection obtained from static analysis for both lattice tower and pole
structures are tabulated in Table1. From the table, it can be observed that the defection
of 40m Mw monopole is 6.5 times higher than the corresponding defection for 40m
high Mw lattice tower. The defection of 30m Mw monopole is 5 times higher than
defection for 30m high Mw lattice tower.
Table 1: Defection Comparison of Mw Monopole and Mw lattice tower
S. No Self supporting Monopole Self Supporting Lattice Tower
Height (m) Defection (mm) Height (m) Defection (mm)
1 30 532 30 103
2 40 1097 40 168
f) Weight Comparison.
Both the Mw tower and Mw Monopole has been designed based on working stress
method. The self weight of both lattice tower and monopole has been calculated and is
tabulated in Table 2.
Table 2: Weight Comparison of Mw Monopole and Mw lattice tower
S. No Self Supporting Monopole
Height (m) Self Weight (kN) Height (m) Self Weight (kN)
1 30 35 30 28
2 40 48 40 38
g) Natural Frequency Comparison.
The natural frequency for both pole and lattice structures are calculated based on FE
analysis and simplifed numerical model and the results are tabulated in Table 3.
Table 3: Natural Frequency Comparison of Mw Monopole and Mw lattice tower
S. No Self Supporting Monopole Self Supporting Lattice Tower
Height (m) Natural Frequency (Hz) Height (m) Natural Frequency (Hz)
FE Model Simplifed
Model
FE Model Simplifed
Model
1 30 1.012 1.034 30 3.11 3.40
2 40 0.606 0.654 40 2.45 2.40
The monopole structures are dynamically sensitive, since the natural frequencies of
these structures are close to 1Hz, when compared to lattice towers, whose frequencies are
higher than 2 Hz. The natural frequency predicted from FE model and simplifed model
Steel Monopoles 345
varies within 1% and hence the simplifed model can be used as better approximation
to estimate the natural frequency of pole and lattice structures. The defection criteria
is one of the most important aspect in communication towers. The defection sway
limit should be within 0.5 degrees for Mw towers. The defection for pole structures
exceeds this limit, but this will not cause a major problem for signal attenuation,
because nowadays CDMA and GSM antenneas are used in signal communication. The
self weight of monopole is 18 to 20% higher than the lattice towers. The self weight
of monopoles can be further reduced by applying suitable optimization techniques.
Considering all these aspects along with ease in transportation, erection, handling and
reduction in land acquisition cost, these pole structures forms a suitable alternate for
conventional lattice towers.
7. ANALYTICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON
STEEL TRANSMISSION POLE STRUCTURES
Analytical and experimental studies conducted on 400kV D/C, 0-2 degree line deviation
suspension type and 132 / 220kV S/C 30
o
deviation self supporting mono pole structures
are discussed in detail. Test results from full scale testing conducted at Tower Testing
and Research Station, Chennai, India are compared with the analytical results.
7.1 400kv D/C Suspension Type Pole
The confguration, dimensions and load application of 400kV D/C transmission line
pole is shown in Fig.17. The pole is of tapered cross section with 1850mm at bottom
and 500mm at top and made in to fve sections for easy transportation and erection.
These sections are jointed by telescoping slip splices with minimum lap of 1.7 times
the largest inside diameter. The main shaft is hex decagonal (16 sided regular polygon)
in shape and made of 10mm thick sheet. The cross arms are of octagonal shape made
of 6mm thickness. The cross arm ends are welded to a circular fange plate as shown in
Fig.18. A separate collar of hex-decogonal in shape is used to fx the cross arms. The
collar is attached to the main shaft at the required height by means of bolts. A circular
cantilever bracket is welded to the collar and stiffened with plate stiffeners. The cross
arm is connected to the bracket by bolts. The collar is connected to the main shaft by
bolts. Transfer of load from collar to the main shaft is by friction developed by tightening
the column of bolts provided in two opposite sides of the collars. The bolts are pre-
tensioned to about 60% to 70% of it tensile capacity. The rotation due to broken wire
loads are resisted by friction developed due to tightening of bolts and interlocking of
collars with main shaft due to polygonal shape. The ground wire peaks are of octagonal
shape made from 6mm sheets. The peaks are directly welded to the collars and the
collars are connected to the main shaft by bolts as shown in Fig.19. The base plate is of
48mm thick ring, welded to the bottom most segment of the main shaft with provision
for fxing 20nos. of 45mm dia. 12.9 grade anchor bolts. Template of 16mm thickness is
used below the base plate. The main shaft, base plate, cross arms and peaks are made
of material Fe - 490 with 350MPa Yield stress and 210kN/mm2 Elastic modulus. The
pole is designed for basic wind speed - 47m/sec, Security Class - 1, Terrain Category
2,Normal span of 300m, wind loads on conductor and ground wires are as per IS:802
part II Sec.2 1995, and wind loads on pole structure as per IS: 875(Part 3)-1987.
Foundation:
In general, the monopole towers can not be accommodated in a regular test bed.
The pole structures requires exclusively a special type of anchoring system since
the extreme bolt carry maximum tension due to uplift force. A special circular
foundation with rock anchors located in concentric circles to resist the uplift forces
and to accommodate the pole with base plate was constructed as shown in Fig.20.
The foundation bolts are tightened up to 60% of their tensile capacity. The foundation
bolts likely to be subjected to maximum tension are identifed prior to testing and
instrumented with strain gauges. The shaft is erected using a mobile crane segment
by segment (Fig.21). The cross arms and ground wire peaks are assembled to the
brackets at ground levels itself and then fxed to the shaft. The verticality is ensured
by using theodolites on both the axes.
Fig. 17 Confguration of 400kV D/c Pole and load point details
Steel Monopoles 347

Collar
Bracket
Fig. 18 Assembly of cross arms
Fig.19 peak with collars and brackets
Instrumented bolt Rock Anchors
Fig.20 Foundation showing rock anchors and instrumented anchor bolts

Fig. 21 Various stages of erection
Analytical and Experimental Natural Frequency of Pole
Field experiment to determine the natural frequency is conducted on the pole structure
erected in the test bed. The theoretical natural frequency of the pole is determined from
fnite element analysis. The full pole along with cross arms, peaks etc., are modeled using
plate elements in NE Nastran. In the collar locations, thickness of shaft is increased to
account for the combined thickness of collar and the shaft. The theoretical frequency is
found to be 1.017 and 1.0Hz in the frst mode, in transverse and longitudinal directions
and 4.83Hz in torsional mode. The measured experimental frequencies are 0.87Hz in
frst mode in both directions and 3.25Hz in torsional mode. The frst few mode shapes
are shown in Fig.22. To account for the additional loading effects due to wind turbulence
and dynamic amplifcation of fexible structures like poles, gust factor G is used. When
the fundamental frequency of the towers is less than 1Hz then most of the current wind
loading standards recommend dynamic analysis for the structures. Certain simplifed
formulae were recommended in the codes to calculate the peak response of wind
sensitive structures. In the present case the measured frequency of the pole structure is
less than 1Hz, hence, the gust factor method given in IS:875, (Part 3) -1987 is used for
determination of wind loads on the pole. The loads due to conductors, earth wires and
insulators are determined as per IS: 802 (Part 1/Sec 1):1995.
Fig. 22 The frst three eigenmodes of monopole tower
Finite Element (FE) Modeling
Plate shell elements are used for modeling the main shaft, cross arms, peaks, stiffeners
and base plate. This element typically resists membrane shear and bending forces. The
non-linear analysis capability of NE Nastran, accounting for the geometric and material
Steel Monopoles 349
non linearity, is used to analyse the model and to obtain the pre-ultimate behaviour. The
elastic- plastic material property of steel is represented by a bi-linear model, having
modulus of elasticity up to a yield stress equal to 210
5
MPa and 2000 MPa beyond yield
stress. The incremental load and predictor-corrector iteration under each load increment
is used in the non linear range. The load is applied in 30 to 40 steps until the limit point
is reached in the load deformation behaviour. Loads are defned to simulate the feld
condition environment for which the structure is designed. The boundary conditions are
specifed for each degree of freedom of each grounded node. Collars, slip splices and
fange plates in cross arms are not modeled separately. Instead, the thickness of the shaft
at collar and slip splice locations are increased to account for the combined thicknesses.
Both linear and non-linear static analysis has been carried out. The body wind loads
are applied as distributed discrete nodal loads along the full height of the structure. The
conductor and ground wire loads are applied as nodal loads at the appropriate locations.
The fnite element model is shown in Fig.23.
Fig. 23 Finite element model: various components
Comparison of Test Vs Analytical Results
a) Security condition
In the present study, the pole is tested for single conductor broken at a time with 75%
wind condition. These tests are conducted on right side ground wire peak, top, middle
conductors and on left bottom conductor. During bottom and middle conductor broken
condition tests, rotation of collar by about 40mm, 56mm respectively were noticed
(Fig.24) in the direction of loading while increasing the longitudinal load from 20%
to 40%. No increase in rotation was noticed during further loading. The deformed FE
model is shown in Fig.25. The test and analysis foundation bolt forces and shaft stresses
in right ground wire broken case are given in Fig.26 and 27. The analysis defections
are compared with test in Fig.28. During top conductor broken test, the collar along
with cross arm assembly has slipped and started rotating like a free body with increase
in longitudinal load as shown in Fig.29. It was noticed that the friction developed at
the interface of collar and main shaft due to tightening of bolts and interlocking forces
between the folded sides of the main shaft and collar was not suffcient to resist the
longitudinal (twisting) load even though number of bolts provided are same in all
collars. The rotation may be due to reduction in contact area (only 50%) between shaft
and collar due to reduced diameter of main shaft at top cross arm level when compared
to other cross arm levels. The reduced widths of polygonal shaft sides or faces are also
one of the reasons for not developing the interlocking forces necessary for resisting the
twisting force. In order to avoid the free body rotation, through bolts passing from one
side of the shaft to diametrically opposite side is provided as shown in Fig.30.
Fig. 24 Rotation of collar
Fig. 25 Deformed FE models in right ground wire and middle conductor broken condition
Steel Monopoles 351
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
BOLT FORCE IN kN
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

L
O
A
D
1A
1T
3T
2T 2A
Fig. 26 Foundation bolt force in right ground wire broken condition
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
STRESS IN N/mm
2
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

L
O
A
D
1T
0T
2T 0A
5T
5A
6T 4
T
3T
7T
8T
9T
1A
9A
6A
Fig. 27 Shaft stresses in right ground wire broken
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
DEFLECTION IN mm
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

L
O
A
D
TT TA LT
LA
TT Transverse Test : TA Transverse Analytical
LT Longitudinal Test : LA Longitudinal Analytical
Fig. 28 Pole defection in right ground wire broken test
Fig. 29 Rotation of top cross arm
Steel Monopoles 353
Fig. 30 Through bolts arresting rotation
b) Reliability condition
In this case, the pole is subjected to transverse and vertical loads only. The loads resulting
from wind on conductors, insulators etc. are applied at the cross arm tips. The wind
load on pole shaft between the cross arms are lumped at collar levels in both test and
analysis. The wind load on shaft below bottom cross arm level is lumped in to a single
point. The forces measured in the foundation bolt during testing and analysis is shown
in Fig.31. Stresses at the bottom segment of the shaft in FE analysis are compared with
the test results in Fig.32. The deformation of the pole measured in test using theodolite
and FE analysis are shown in Fig.33. Deformed FE model and stress pattern in the
bottom segment of the pole are shown in Fig.34.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
BOLT FORCE IN kN
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

L
O
A
D
1T
2T
1A
2A
T TEST
A ANALYTICAL
Fig. 31 Foundation bolt force in reliability test
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
STRESS in N/mm
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

L
O
A
D
1T
0A
0T
8A
8
2 2A
3T
7T
5T 4T
6T
1A
A - ANALYTICAL T - TEST
5A
Fig. 32 Shaft stresses in Reliability test
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000
DEFLECTION IN MM
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

L
O
A
D
ANALYTICAL
TEST
Fig. 33 Pole defection in reliability test
Steel Monopoles 355

Fig. 34 Deformed FE model and shaft stresses in N/mm
2
at bottom in reliability test
7.2 132/220KV S/C 300 Deviation Pole
The pole is of tapered cross section with a diameter of 1200mm at bottom and 450mm
at top and is made in to fve sections. The main shaft is hex decagonal (16 sided regular
polygon) in shape and made of different thicknesses varying from 12mm to 6mm. The pole
is without cross arms and peaks. The conductors are connected to the tension insulators
on either side of the pole. Jumpers are used to connect the conductors. Supports are
used for hanging the jumper insulators. The pole during erection and testing is shown
in Fig.35. The foundation bolts and bottom portion of shaft were instrumented with
strain gauges. Fig.36 shows the deformation of pole in FE analysis and during testing in
Reliability and Dead end load cases. The measured stresses in shaft and foundation bolt
forces are shown in Fig.37 and 38.
Fig. 35 Various stages of erection, rigging of 132/220kV 30
O
dev. Mono pole in Test pad
Fig. 36 Instrumented foundation bolts and shaft, buckled stiffener and Deformed pole dur-
ing test and FE analysis
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
6T
5T
6A
T
3A
2A
2 T
3 T
1T
1A 4T
4A
A - ANALYTICAL T - TEST
Fig. 37 Shaft stresses in dead end condition
Steel Monopoles 357
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
2A
2T
A ANALYTICAL
T TEST
Fig. 38 Foundation bolt force in dead end condition
The mono pole structures are successfully tested for all load cases. The non linear FE model
shaft stresses, deformations and foundation bolt forces are compared with the test results.
The measured test defection at top of shaft is more by about 55% to 80% to that of analysis
defection in reliability load condition. The measured force in the extreme foundation bolt is
10% more than the analytical force. The measured stresses at bottom of shaft are almost the
same as that of analysis. Rotation of cross arms is noticed during broken conductor loads. This
rotation is less at bottom conductor level when compared to middle conductor level.
8.0 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON OCTAGONAL
LIGHTING POLE WITH ACCESS HOLE
Tubular steel poles are laterally fexible and relatively large defection occurs due
to lateral loads. Street lighting columns are usually made from thin walled tubes of
circular or octagonal in cross section. These lighting columns will have an access hole
in the region of high bending moment. The problem under investigation is the bending
strength of thin walled octagonal tapered street lighting columns with access hole in the
region of critical moment location. The lighting columns are of 8m and 12m high with
uniform thickness of 4mm. The primary loads on the lighting columns are mainly from
wind loads. The wind load acting on these columns causes large bending moment in the
bottom locations and the situation is further complicated by the presence of the access
hole. The critical case is when the wind acts a direction such that the access hole lies in
the most highly compressed region of the octagonal cross section. Strength and stability
assessment of these lighting columns becomes important, whenever they are subjected
to extreme wind loads.
Octagonal poles are usually designed within the elastic limit of the material. Under
extreme wind load cases, the stress limits are allowed to exceed the elastic limit and
a moderate amount of plastic yielding is allowed. Due to the presence of access hole,
the bending moment capacity is not only reduced due to the reduced cross section, but
also by local plate buckling in the region of hole edges. Stress concentration effect also
intensify the effect of local buckling. Because of the interaction between yielding and
local buckling, the local buckling stress in the region of access hole is usually higher.
Full scale tests on the lighting pole has been conducted, loaded upto 100% design load
and further increase upto local failure and the corresponding defections and strain
responses are correlated in this paper.
M. Dicleli has concluded that the pole structures with polygonal shape have larger
fexural capacity for a specifed circumferential thickness. The number of sides in a
polygon is determined by the specifed circumferential thickness of the pole cross
section and its diameter. The location of maximum stress along the height of the pole
is a function of load distribution and the relative orientation of forces acting on the
pole. S. A. Baban. et. al) conducted pure bending test on 12 specimens of both circular
and octagonal cross sections both with and without the access hole at the position of
extreme fbre compression. The results gave a quantitative indication of the weakening
effect of the access hole and have formed an essential basis for the development of
design formulae later. G.H.Little) developed empirical formulae for generating design
curves for the bending strength of thin walled non tapered steel tubes, both circular and
octagonal in cross section, along with the allowance for the presence of access hole in
the compression zone based on the test results conducted by S. A. Baban et. al.
Present Study
In the present study, analytical and experimental studies conducted on 12m street lighting
without access hole and 8m high octagonal with and without access hole is discussed
in detail. Test results from full scale testing conducted at Tower Testing and Research
Station, SERC, Chennai are compared with the analytical results.
The confguration, dimensions and load application details for 12m octagonal pole
is shown in Fig.39. The main shaft is octagonal (8 sided regular polygon) in shape and
made of 4mm thick throughout the height. The diameter of the shaft is 200mm at bottom
and 100mm at top. The base plate is of 16mm thick welded to the bottom of the shaft.
In the access hole location the shaft is reinforced with 16mm square bars around the
periphery. The main shaft is made of Fe-490 material with 350MPa Yield stress and
base plate with yield stress of 210MPa.
Steel Monopoles 359
Fig.39. 12m Octagonal Pole basic confguration and load point details
Fig.40 8m Octagonal Pole basic confguration and load point details
The confguration, dimensions and load application details for 8m octagonal pole
is shown in Fig.40. The main shaft is octagonal (8 sided regular polygon) in shape and
made of 4mm thick throughout the height. The diameter of the shaft is 150mm at bottom
and 75mm at top. The base plate is of 20mm thick welded to the bottom of the shaft.
The location of access hole is 0.5m from bottom of the shaft. The main shaft is made of
material Fe-490 with 350 MPa Yield stress and base plate with yield stress 210MPa.
The design parameters are common for both the poles. They are as follows:
Basic Wind Velocity 47 m/s; Terrain Category 2; Wind load on Pole Structure
as per IS:875 (Part 3):1987.
Preliminary Analysis
The selection of structural confguration of the street lighting column such as the pole
dimension, number of sides of the polygon, material yield stress and plate thickness
is left to the design engineer. Street lighting columns with regular octagonal cross
section will not be subjected to lateral buckling or lateral torsional buckling, because
of their symmetry. The European standard EN 40-3-3 specifes the requirements for the
verifcation of the design of the lighting columns by limit state principles, where the
effects of factored load are compared with the relevant resistance of the structure. Of
the two limit states, the ultimate limit state corresponds to the load carrying capacity of
the lighting column, whereas the serviceability limit state corresponds to the defection
the lighting column.
For closed regular octagonal cross section as shown in Fig.41, the bending strength
of the section shall be calculated from the equation,
M
ux
M
f Z
uy
y p
m

g
1
3
10
in Nm (1)
where
f
y
is the characteristic strength of the material (in N/mm2); f
1
is the value obtained
from the curve appropriate to the cross section with value of R t f E E
y
; ; is
the modulus of elasticity of the material = 210
5
N/mm
2
; R is the mean radius of the
cross section (in mm); t is the wall thickness (in mm); g
m
is the partial material factor
(1.15); Z
p
is the plastic modulus of the closed regular cross section (in mm
3
); where
Z R t
p
4 32
2
. for octagonal cross section.
Fig. 41 Cross sectional details of 12m, 8m poles
Fig. 42 Access hole detail for 12m, 8m poles
Steel Monopoles 361
Similarly, the bending strength of the reinforced openings in regular cross section as
shown in Fig.42. is calculated from the equation,
M
f Z
M
f Z
ux
y pnr
m
uy
y pyr
m
= =
( )
,
,
,
,
6
3
6
3
10 10
and in Nm (2)
where
6
is a factor for reinforcement provided given by
2
2 0 32
2
2
t t E
t t E RLf
w
w y
+ ( )
+ ( ) + .
.
Z
pnr
is the plastic modulus of the section including the effect of door reinforcement
about plastic neutral axis n-n (in mm
3
) =
2 2
2
90
2
R t
B
B
x
x
cos sin cos
0
0 0 -
\
]

)
]
- +
]
]
]
]
]
]
with B A Rt m m
x c ex x
=( )( ) .
Z
pyr
is the plastic modulus of the section including the effect of door reinforcement
about plastic neutral axis y-y (in mm
3
).
= 2 1
2
R t B
y
+ +
]
]
]
]
cos sin 0 0 with
B A Rt m m
y c ey y
=( )( )
.
0 is the half of the angle of the opening in degrees.
m m m m
ex ey x y
, , ,
are the distance from the centroid of the door reinforcement to the
corresponding x-x and y-y axes respectively.
t
w
is the thickness of the reinforcement at the side of the door opening in (mm);
is effective length of opening inn(mm); A
c
is effective cross sectional area of door
reinforcement in (mm2).
Little el. al. has developed empirical formulae to fnd the maximum sustainable
moment (M
max
) for a non tapered steel tube for an octagonal cross section with or
without the access hole. The Moment can be found directly from the tabulated values[1]
or it can be calculated form the equation given below,

M M M M M M
p cr cr
- ( ) - ( )=
max max max
q
(3)
where M
max
is the maximum sustainable moment.
M
p
is the Plastic Moment from tabulated values[1]; M
cr
is the moment at
buckling assuming elastic behaviour.
M z
p cr e
= ( ) c
for closed octagonal sections and
M z
p cr e
= ( ) c y / for sections with access hole, where
y
0
c = +
( )
1 0
2
13
. ;
Sin D
t
cr
; is the
extreme fbre compressive bending stress at elastic buckling; D is the Diameter of the
inscribed circle of octagonal section.
0 is the access hole size; t is the wall thickness; q is the Ayrton Perry factor given
in (1).
z
e
is the elastic section modulus.
Finite Element (FE) Modeling
Plate shell elements are used to model the shaft, stiffeners and base plate. This element
typically resists membrane shear and bending forces. The non-linear analysis capability
of NE-NASTRAN, accounting for geometric and material non-linearity, is used to
analyse the model and to obtain the pre-yielding behavior. The elastic-plastic material
property of steel is represented by a bi-linear model, having modulus of elasticity up to
yield stress equal to 2E5MPa and 2000MPa beyond yield stress. The incremental load
and predictor-corrector iteration under each load increment is used in the nonlinear
range. The load is applied in 30 to 40 steps until the limit point is reached in the load
deformation behavior. Loads are defned to simulate the feld condition environment for
which the structure is designed. The boundary conditions are specifed for each degree
of freedom for each node. Both linear and non-linear static analysis has been carried
out. The body wind loads are applied as discrete nodal loads along the height of the
structure. The fnite element model of both the poles is shown in Fig. 43.
Fig. 43 Finite Element Model of 12m and 8m Pole
Comparison of Test Vs Analytical Results
The testing was performed in vertical position simulating the feld condition. All load
measuring sensors and other instruments are located in such a manner loss of accuracy
Steel Monopoles 363
as a result of rigging is minimum. A digital control system with recently calibrated
instruments was used for simultaneous smooth load application with precise servo
controlled hydraulic actuators. The pole is instrumented on salient locations as shown
in Fig.44 using electrical resistant foil type strain gauge.
Fig. 44 Location of Strain gauges for 12m and 8m Pole
For 12m street lighting pole with doors in closed condition, the load was incremented
step by step and reached up to 100% load in both serviceability and ultimate limit state
conditions and kept constant for 5minutes. The pole test was declared successful since
the mast withstood the 100% load for 5minutes duration with the defection of 269mm
and 425mm. The load was increased beyond 100% and reached up to 3 times above
the required load. At this point of load, prying deformation was observed in the base
plate indicating large deformation at constant load and hence concluded as failure. The
deformed fnite element model and tested pole is shown in Fig.45. The test and FE
analysis shaft stresses is shown in Fig.46. It was observed up to 100% of design load,
the actual stress and theoretical stresses are very close and within 10% and deviates
when load reached 300% indicating large inelastic strains. The analysis defections are
compared with the test as shown in Fig.47. The defections are direct response of the
applied load which also indicated large defections at 300% of load. Non linearity in
defections are observed beyond 50% of design load indicating the need for non - linear
analysis of monopole structures. The bending strength comparison was made with the
codal provision and Littles equation along with the test and analytical results as shown
in Fig.48. The bending strength of the monopoles are conservatively estimated by
European Code EN-40-3-3. The full scale experimental bending strength is marginally
lower than previous researchers (Littles) and un-conservative with analytical values.
Fig. 45 Deformed Pole in FE analysis and Test (8m)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
-450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E

O
F

L
O
A
D

SHAFT STRESS in N/mm
2
1T
1A
2T 2A
3A
3T
4A
4T
5T 5A
T- TEST
A- ANALYTICAL
Fig. 46 Shaft Stresses of 12m Pole
Steel Monopoles 365
Fig. 47 Defection of 12m Pole
Fig. 48 Comparison of Bending Strength for 12m Pole
For 8m street lighting pole with access hole in closed condition, the load was incremented
step by step and reached up to 100% load in both serviceability and ultimate limit state
conditions and kept constant for 5minutes. The pole test was declared successful since the
mast withstood the 100% load for 5minutes duration with the defection of 200mm and
336mm constant in both the tests. The load was increased beyond 100% and reached up to
2 times more than the required loads. The defection at this stage of loading was recorded
as 488 mm and then off loaded. Then the test was continued with the access hole in open
condition and the loads was incremented in steps of 25% up to 325% of load. At this stage
of loading, local buckling was observed in the shaft above the access hole as shown in
Fig.49 and concluded as failure. The deformed fnite element model and tested pole is shown
in Fig.50. The test and FE analysis shaft stresses is shown in Fig.51. The defection and
strain responses are similar to the previous experiments indicating non-linear behavior of the
mast. The analysis defections are compared with the test as shown in Fig.52. The bending
comparison was made with the codal provision and Littles equation along with the test and
analytical results as shown in Fig.53. The behavior was similar to the previous experiments
but the bending strength estimated by previous researcher (Littles) was very un-conservative
and much lower than European Code when compared with full scale testing.
Fig. 49 Local buckling of plate near access hole in analysis and test
Remarks:
The non-linear fnite element stresses, deformations are compared with the test results.
The measured deformation at top is more compared to that of analytical defection. The
measured shaft stresses are same as analysis stresses. For 8m Pole with the access hole
in open condition, the measured shaft stresses and deformations are comparable with
the analytical stresses.
From the comparison with the codal values for 12m Pole, the EN 40-3-3 is always
on the conservative side when compared with the analytical and experimental values.
The lower experimental bending strength is due to the distress in the base plate. For 8m
Pole, the experimental and analytical bending strength are almost equal and higher the
strength according to codal regulations. The Littles experimental values are highly un-
conservative because the specimens tested by the author were non-tapered and behavior
of the pole as a whole structure is different from the component specimens.
Steel Monopoles 367
Fig. 50 Deformed FE Model and defected pole during test
Fig. 51 Shaft Stresses of 8m Pole.
Fig. 52 Defection of 8m Pole
Fig. 53 Comparison of bending strength for 8m Pole.
Steel Monopoles 369
APPENDIX: PROPERTIES OF VARIOUS TUBULAR SECTIONS
9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is thankful to the Director, CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre,
Chennai, India for the kind support and encouragement.
Steel Monopoles 371
10.0 REFERENCES
1. Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE/SEI 48-05, American Society
of Civil Engineers.
2. Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures, ASCE Manuals and Reports on
Engineering Practice No.72, American Society of Civil Engineers.
3. Test report on 400kV D/C PAtype Suspension Pole Structure, Report no.CNP671
41, 2006.
4. N. Prasad Rao, S.J.Mohan and N. Lakshmanan (2004), A Semi Empirical Approach
for Estimating Displacements and Fundamental Frequency of Transmission Line
Towers, Int. Jnl. of Structural Stability and Dynamics, Vol.4, No.2, June 2004,
pp181-195.
5. IS 875 (Part 3) 1987, Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than Earthquakes)
for Buildings and Structures, Part 3 Wind Loads., Bureau of Indian Standards.,
New Delhi.
6. IS 802 (Part 1/ Sec1):1995, Use of Structural Steel in Over Head Transmission Line
Towers, Code of Practice Part 1 Materials, Loads and Permissible Stresses., Bureau
of Indian Standards., New Delhi.
7. Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading, ASCE Manuals
and Reports on Engineering Practice No.74, American Society of Civil Engineers,
1991.
8. Test report on 132/220kV S/C 300 Dev. Mono Pole, Report no.CNP6046 41, 2006.
9. Dicleli, M. (1997), Computer-Aided Optimum Design of Steel Tubular Telescopic
Pole Structures, Computers and Structures, Vol.62, No.6, pp. 961-973.
10. Baban. S. A., Little, G. H., (1984), Tests on Bending Strength of circular and
octagonal steel tubes, including the effect of a hole, The Structural Engineer,
Vol.62B, No.3, pp.45 -52.
11. Little, G. H. (1984), Design Curves for the bending strength of circular and octagonal
steel tubes, including the effect of a hole, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 62B, No.3,
pp. 53 -68.
12. EN 40-3-3 (2003), European Standard for Lighting Columns Part 3-3: Design
Verifcation Verifcation by calculation.

Transmission Mono Poles-SERC

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Transmission Mono Poles-SERC

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Advanced Course on Communication and Power Transmission Towers

6-8 February 2013, CSIR-SERC, Chennai - 113, India. pp 323-371.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen