DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR AND SEISMIC RESPONSE OF FRP LIGHT

POLES IN HIGH SEISMIC ZONES

Sameh SALIB
Adjunct Professor
Ryerson University
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
sameh.salib@ryerson.ca*

George ABDEL-SAYED
Professor Emeritus
University of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
geosayed@yahoo.com

Abstract
Poles carrying lighting fixtures and traffic signs as well as those supporting power and
communications lines are traditionally made of metals and concrete. However, corrosion
deteriorates their structural integrity and architectural appearance. Also, the collapse of such
poles due to corrosion and/or seismic activity jeopardizes the safety of the public, travelling
vehicles and nearby properties. Moreover, most of these poles are designed as free-standing
cantilevers with almost no redundancy in their structural system. In this scenario, it is
essential to have deep understanding of the poles structural behaviour and to ensure their
durability. Recently, the tubes made of Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRP) with their non-
corrosive nature and high strength to weight ratio have been a favourable option for structural
poles. Yet, the background about their structural behaviour, in general, and their performance
under seismic excitations, in particular, is quite limited. Therefore, the study presented herein
investigates the dynamic behaviour and seismic response of both glass and carbon FRP light
poles versus those of traditional poles made of steel and concrete. Various innovative options
to establish the anchorage between FRP pole base and concrete footings are discussed as well.

Keywords: Base anchorage, Concrete bridges, Dynamic behaviour, FRP tubes, Light poles,
Seismic response.

1. Introduction
While metallic (steel/aluminum) and (reinforced/pre-stressed) concrete poles have been used
for decades, FRP poles were introduced few years ago as FRP tubes filled with concrete [1,2]
as well as hollow tapered Glass FRP (GFRP) tubes [3,4]. Both GFRP and Carbon FRP
(CFRP) have non-corrosive nature and relatively low mass density. Such unique
characteristics qualify FRP poles as potential replacement to conventional poles especially in
harsh weather and/or high seismic locations where the collapse of structural poles due to
fatigue initiated by corrosion occasionally reported [5,6]. Furthermore, Most of the research
programs related to light poles and traffic signs structures are dedicated to fatigue and crash
issues where a fixed base approach (i.e. poles cantilevered directly from ground) is commonly
adopted for their structural analysis [7,8,9].
Herein, the effect of parameters such as material density and mechanical properties on the
poles dynamic behaviour and seismic response has been studied through the consideration of
four different types of poles (steel, concrete, GFRP and CFRP). A bridge located in one of the

Page 1 of 8
highest seismic zones of South America has been selected as the media to support the
investigated light poles. The bridge has a nonlinear friction/spring type isolation system fitted
with displacement control devices [10,11]. Therefore, the validity of the fixed base approach
under such conditions has been examined. Also, fairly innovative techniques to anchor FRP
poles into their concrete footings are proposed through the following paragraphs.

2. Bridge and Light Poles Description

The subject bridge is located in Quito, Ecuador which is considered in the highest seismic
zone according to the Canadian and American standards [10,11]. The bridge superstructure
consists of a continuous 7 spans (27m each) post-tensioned solid concrete deck
(approximately 18m width and 1m depth). The substructure-foundation system is formed of
two circular columns supported by a shallow combined footing at each pier and abutment
(Figure 1). The columns diameter is 1.2m at abutments and 1.5m at piers. The bridge is not
quite symitrical; the columns at the south abutment and piers 1, 2 and 3 are approximatlly 2m
longer than the rest of the bridge columns and they are provided with 2.0m diameter pedestal.
More details of the bridge and bearings were reported previously [10,11].

Figure 1. Bridge elevation.

All the masts have the same architectural profile; 5.5 m height, 110 mm outside diameter at
tip and 220 mm outside diameter at base plate. The mast properties of the investigated pole
types are listed in Table 1. The poles are considered to be pre-cast/manufactured with a 25mm
steel base plate fastened to the mast; enabling any of the proposed light pole types to be
anchored to concrete pedestals/footings by a traditional anchorage assembly (considered 4
anchor bolts of 25 mm diameter for the present stusy).
Table 1. The mast properties of the investigated poles.
Pole Type Concrete GFRP Steel CFRP
Modulus of Elasticity (MPa) 28000 40000 200000 150000
Strength Type Compressive Tensile Yield Tensile
Strength Value (MPa) 40 600 350 1500
Mass Density (kg/m3) 2350 1600 7800 1600
Tube Thickness (mm) Solid 19 3 4
Weight (kN) 3.05 0.87 0.67 0.18
14 2
EI* (10 N.mm ) 17.1 13.4 13.5 13.3
* Average of the tip, mid-height and base cross section moment of Inertia.

Page 2 of 8
The material properties listed in Table 1 are based on various FRP products available in the
market for similar applications. The thickness of the steel, GFRP and CFRP masts has been
selected practically as well as to introduce almost the same mast stiffness, for comparing
purposes. FRP masts are proposed to be manufactured of multiple fibers layers oriented at
different angles with respect to the pole longitudinal axis. This results in a composite structure
with longitudinal and spiral reinforcement which improves the overall mast strength and
mitigates the FRP out-of-plan weakness [13].

3. Seismic Data
Due to the seismic sensitivity of the project site, e.g. being relatively close to an active fault
with a history of frequent strong/long period earthquakes and having a thick fill layer to
support the bridge footings, a specific seismic analysis was carried out. The study accounted
for the site geology, soil conditions, shear wave propagation characteristics, and regional
seismic activities. The response spectrum and time history data, e.g. applied earthquake
acceleorgram as shown in Figure 2, were provided by the seismic study as well [12,13].

Figure 2. Applied earthquake accelerogram.

4. Finite Element Modelling

A three dimensional Finite Element Model (3D-FEM) using the software SAP2000 [12] was
developed earlier for the bridge [10]. Herein, four light poles have been added. Three of
which are anchored to the east side of the bridge deck while the fourth light pole has its
footing fixed to the surrounding soil as shown in Figure 3. A detailed FEM was developed for
the light pole base connection, anchorage and pedestal. Furthermore, the interaction between
anchor bolt, base plate and bolt nuts has been represented by a combination of joint
constraints and link members.

5. Analysis and Results

The FEM has been subjected to both modal analysis and non-linear time history analysis. The
anchorage straining actions of the light poles in the form of maximum shear and axial force
induced in each anchor bolt during the seismic loading in X direction, EQ-X, as well as in Y
direction, EQ-Y, are listed in Tables 2 and 3. It should be noted that none of the poles mast or
anchorage experienced failure due to the applied seismic loading.

Page 3 of 8
 Figure 3. Isometric view of the FEM of bridge and light poles.

Table 2. Maximum force induced in each anchor bolt (kN) for poles anchored to bridge deck.
Pole
Location South Edge Mid-span North Edge
Pole
Type* C GF S CF C GF S CF C GF S CF
Shear, EQ-X 0.36 0.27 0.26 0.21 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.14
Shear, EQ-Y 3.41 3.14 3.03 2.23 1.87 1.75 1.74 1.70 2.50 2.34 2.48 2.31
Axial, EQ-X 5.33 2.32 1.58 0.57 5.78 2.42 1.85 0.53 5.90 1.85 1.50 0.46
Axial, EQ-Y 4.71 2.94 2.55 1.68 1.37 0.71 0.61 0.43 2.54 1.46 1.72 1.34
* C, GF, S and CF represent Concrete, GFRP, Steel and CFRP poles respectively.

Table 3. Maximum force induced in each anchor bolt (kN) for poles anchored to footings.
Pole Type* C GF S CF
Shear, EQ-X 2.70 1.10 0.73 0.21
Shear, EQ-Y 2.70 1.10 0.73 0.21
Axial, EQ-X 15.90 7.12 4.50 0.94
Axial, EQ-Y 15.90 7.12 4.50 0.94
* C, GF, S and CF represent Concrete, GFRP, Steel and CFRP poles respectively.

According to the values obtained for the poles anchored to the bridge deck and listed in Table
2, the following can be noticed:
The shear and axial forces of the anchor bolts vary based on the pole type and location; the
concrete poles introduce the highest shear and axial forces while the CFRP poles present the
lowest values at the same location; and the shear force due to EQ-Y is much higher than that
due to EQ-X for the same pole type and location.
On the other hand, the anchorage forces of the light poles anchored to footings, as per the
values listed in Table 3, are characterized with the following:
The shear forces due to EQ-X and EQ-Y are equal for the same pole type and similar
behaviour can be observed for the axial forces due to the symmetry of both geometry and

Page 4 of 8
loading in X and Y directions; compared to the poles anchored to the bridge deck, the shear
forces due to EQ-Y are lower while the shear forces due to EQ-X are higher; and, in general,
the axial forces are much higher than those for the poles anchored to the bridge deck.
The observed differences regarding the poles seismic response, represented by their
anchorage forces, due to the pole type, supporting media and location can be interpreted
through the basics of the poles dynamic behaviour. The first four fundamental modes of
vibrations of the light poles anchored to footings fixed to ground and those of the bridge/ light
poles anchored to deck are shown in Figure 4. Also, the time period of the first six
fundamental modes of vibrations is listed in Table 4. It can be seen that there is a significant
difference in the mode shapes and time periods of light poles anchored to footings and those
of the bridge/anchored light poles.

1st Mode 2nd Mode

3rd Mode 4th Mode

1st Mode 2nd Mode 3rd Mode 4th Mode

a) bridge/anchored light poles* b) light poles anchored to footings*

*Red: deformed shape and Grey: undeformed shape
Figure 4. Fundamental modes of vibration.

Table 4. Time period (sec) of fundamental modes of vibration.

Bridge/anchored
Poles anchored to footings light poles
Pole Type* C GF S CF
1st Mode 0.311 0.176 0.174 0.091 1.216
nd 1.141
2 Mode 0.307 0.171 0.169 0.088
3rd Mode 0.071 0.038 0.038 0.020 1.082
4th Mode 0.070 0.037 0.037 0.019 0.589
th 0.202
5 Mode 0.027 0.015 0.015 0.008
th 0.161
6 Mode 0.026 0.014 0.014 0.007
* C, GF, S and CF represent concrete, GFRP, steel and CFRP poles respectively.

The first few fundamental modes of vibrations attract most of the total structure mass, i.e.
control the pole dynamic behaviour, straining actions and anchorage forces during a seismic
event. From this angle, while the dynamic behaviour of the light poles anchored to footings is
dominated by the mast flexural modes of vibrations, the light poles anchored to deck are
influenced by the deck in-plan transitional and rotational modes.
Also, the difference in the results between X and Y directions for the light poles anchored to
the bridge deck can be seen through the bridge fundamental modes of vibration shown in
Figure 6. The first mode of vibration of the bridge represents the deck as a rigid plate sliding
over the substructure, attracting about 67% of the mass, in X direction. Meantime, the same

Page 5 of 8
percentage of mass is attracted to Y direction through the second, third and fourth modes of
vibration where the deck behaves as a continuous beam supported laterally by the
substructure. Further, the poles anchored to deck have different anchorage forces due to the
unsymmetrical support conditions of the deck. The pier columns differ in height along the
bridge (higher towards the south) as motioned earlier, i.e. flexural, shear and axial rigidity of
substructure vary along the bridge (less towards the south). This is consistent with the second
fundamental mode of vibration of the bridge/poles shown in Figure 6.a which corresponds to
a rigid body sliding in the Y direction. It can be seen that the deck south edge is shifted quite
further than the north edge in the Y direction which introduces an in-plane deck twist.

6. Proposed Options for FRP Pole Base Anchorage and Future Research
Three different options to anchor FRP light poles to concrete footings (and bridge deck
pedestals) are presented in Figure 5 along with a comparison between these options in Table
5. Option A shows an FRP base plate manufactured as part of the mast (e.g. integrally
spliced with FRP angle) with anchor bolt holes. For option B, a part of the FRP mast is
embedded in the footing to establish the required anchorage. Both options are suitable for
cast-in-place concrete. On the other hand, option C suggests that a part of the FRP pole mast
to be embedded in the footing similar to option B, however; the footing is a precast concrete
component with a hollow portion accommodating the mast.
The filling material between the mast and footing is recommended to be an Ultra High
Performance Concrete (UHPC) with high flow-ability, high early strength and fast cure [14].
Within the embedment zone, the surfaces of the footing hollow portion and the FRP mast can
be relatively rough in order to improve their bond with the filling material. Also, holes in
addition to exterior and/or interior ribs can be made within the mast embedded portion during
the mast manufacturing process. Such holes and ribs will introduce an interlocking
mechanism between the mast base and the filling material, which can improve the pole
anchorage and reduce the mast embedment and associated cost. Option C, to the knowledge
of the authors, is presented herein for the first time as a method to anchor FRP light poles.
Therefore, future research can be directed towards investigating the presented options and
developing guidelines for an optimum mast embedment depth with the corresponding size
and distribution of its perforations and ribs.

Figure 5. Anchorage options for FRP light pole base.

Page 6 of 8
Table 5. Anchorage options for FRP light pole base.
Option A B C

Anchorage Mechanical connection Bond between the tube Bond/interlocking

mechanism between bolts and base
plate then
bond/interlocking
between the anchorage
assembly and concrete
Expected cost for High
FRP mast fabrication
Time window for Cannot start prior to
pole initial alignment completion of concrete
and plumbing curing/reaching desired
strength but unlimited
thereafter
Pole re- feasible
alignment/plumbing
after initial
Installation
On-site quality high (footing/anchorage
control demands depends on cast-in-place
concrete)
Expected time for on- long (needs time for
site construction tasks concrete curing/reaching
desired strength and pole
installation, i.e. few days
~ few weeks)
Expected total initial High
cost
Durability Low (impacted by
anchors corrosion and/or
quality of cast-in-place
concrete)
Expected total future High
(e.g. repair) cost
and concrete within the between the mast-UHPC
embedded mast portion filler-footing within the
embedded mast portion
Low Moderate
Unlimited till the initial Unlimited till the initial
setting of concrete setting of UHPC filler
Not feasible Not feasible
high (footing/anchorage Moderate (footing is pre-
depends on cast-in-place cast and anchorage
concrete) depends on UHPC)
long (needs time for pole short (time needed for
installation and concrete pole installation and
curing/reaching desired UHPC curing/reaching
strength, i.e. few days ~ desired strength, i.e. few
few weeks) hours ~ few days)
Low Moderate
Moderate (impacted by High (superior durability
quality of cast-in-place of precast concrete,
concrete) UHPC and FRP)
Moderate Low

7. Conclusions
Based on the conducted study, the following conclusions can be obtained:
The material properties of light poles play an important role in their dynamic behaviour. For
CFRP, GFRP, concrete and steel poles, having almost the same flexural stiffness, anchorage
assembly and outside dimensions, CFRP poles develop the lowest anchorage forces under the
same seismic excitation. This is mainly due to the CFRP relatively low density to modulus of
elasticity (and tensile strength) ratio, which enables the CFRP pole to have the lowest pole
weight with about the same flexural stiffness and strength.
The dynamic behaviour of the pole supporting media (e.g. bridge deck vs. ground directly)
influences that of the poles, their seismic response and related anchorage forces.
Adopting a fixed base approach for light poles analysis does not necessarily provide a
conservative design. Poles anchored to bridge decks, even with the presence of seismic
isolation bearings, may experience higher anchorage forces than those for poles fixed to
ground. Therefore, the relevant standards should emphasize the need for a sophisticated
dynamic analysis (e.g. 3D-FEM) for better understanding of the seismic behaviour of light
poles anchored to structures.

Page 7 of 8
A future research is recommended to investigate the dynamic behaviour and anchorage forces
of FRP poles anchored to concrete with high durability and cost effective anchorage options
similar to those introduced through the present study.

8. References

[1] FAM, A., FLISAK, B., and RIZKALLA, S., Experimental and Analytical Modeling of
Concrete-Filled FRP Tubes Subjected to Combined Bending and Axial Loads,
American Concrete Institute (ACI)-Structural Journal, 2003, Vol. 100, No. 4, pp. 499-
509.
[2] QASRAWI, Y., Flexural Behaviour of Spun-cast Concrete-filled Fibre Reinforced
Polymer Tubes Applications, MSc dissertation submitted to the Civil Engineering
Department- Queens University, Canada, 2007.
[3] IBRAHIM, S., POLYZOIS, D., and HASSAN, S., Development of Glass Fibre
Reinforced Plastics for Transmission and Distribution Lines, Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering (CJCE), 2002, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 850-858.
[4] MASMOUDI, R., MOHAMED, H. and METICHE, S., Finite Element Modeling for
Deflection and Bending Responses of GFRP Poles, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites, 2008, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 639-658.
[5] CONNER, R., HODGSON, I., OCEL, J., and BRAKKE, B., Update on Fatigue
Cracking and Inspection of High-mast Lighting Towers, 22nd International Bridge
Conference (IBC), 2005.
[6] AZZAM, D., Fatigue Behavior of Highway Welded Aluminium Light Pole Support,
Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty- University of Akron, USA, 2006.
[7] DEXTER, R., RICKER, M., Fatigue-Resistant Design of Cantilevered Signal, Sign,
and Light Supports by National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP),
Report No. 469 submitted to Transportation Research Board (TRB), USA, 2002.
[8] MCGEE, H., TAORI, S. and PERSAUD, B., Crash Experience Warrant for Traffic
Signals by National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Report No.
461 submitted to Transportation Research Board (TRB), USA, 2003.
[9] AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF THE STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS, Standard
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic
Signals, AASHTO-LTS 5th edition, 2009.
[10] SALIB, S. & IBRAHIM, M., Seismic Analysis and Parametric Study for a Continuous
Seven Spans Post-tensioned Bridge in Quito, Ecuador, Structural Congress by the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2008, Conference-CD.
[11] SALIB, S. & BRADFORD, P., Innovative Seismic Isolation of the New Quito
International Airport Bridge, 7th World Congress on Joints, Bearings and Seismic
Systems for Concrete Structures (IJBRC), 2011, Conference-CD.
[12] COMPUTERS AND STRUCTURES INC., Integrated Analysis and Design Software,
SAP2000, 2009.
[13] SALIB, S., ABDEL-SAYED, G., and GRACE, N., An Analytical Approach towards
the Strength of Concrete Beams Reinforced and/or Prestressed with FRP Bars,
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering (CJCE), 2002, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 301-315.
[14] JAPAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, Recommendation for Design and
Construction of Ultra High Strength Fiber Reinforced Concrete Structures, JSCE
Guidelines for Concrete, No. 9, 2006.

Page 8 of 8