Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 59

Transmission Line Design of

Structures & Foundations


TADP 549

Pre-engineered
Steel Poles
Presentation 1.2

Dr. Prasad Yenumula


Transmission & Distribution Program
Reference Documents

– ASCE/SEI 48 (2011), Design of Steel Transmission


Pole Structures, ASCE Standard
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginia

– RUS Bulletin 1724E-214, Guide Specification for


Standard Class Steel Transmission Poles
Discussion Topics

Pre-engineered or Wood Pole Equivalent


steel poles
– Standard class poles

– Theory

– Worked out Problems

– Limitations
Wood Pole Equivalent Steel Poles

 Designed to be approximately equivalent to:


– Standard wood pole classes ‘in terms load
carrying capacity’

– Typically based on required ultimate moment


capacity of pole at ground line
Wood Pole Equivalent Steel Poles (cont.)

 Advantages of wood equivalent steel poles


include:
– Normally lighter - than wood or concrete
– Pre-engineered - shorter lead times
– Less maintenance - compared to wood poles
– Longer life - than wood poles
Examples - Wood Equivalent Steel Poles

Examples include:

T&B : LD poles

Valmont: SW poles

Sabre Tubular: STS poles


Wood Pole Classification System

 Wood poles classified as:

 Class 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, H1, H2, H3,


H4, H5, and H6

 Capacity increases (from class 10 to H6)


with increasing pole diameter
Wood Pole Classification System (cont.)

 ANSI (American National Standards Institute) 05.1


standardized wood poles based on
– Standard Horizontal loads 2 ft from pole top

 Horizontal loads are the basis for determination of


the minimum pole circumference at 6 ft from the
butt
Wood Pole Classification System (cont.)

 The different pole classes are:

– Class 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, H1, H2, H3, H4,


H5, and H6

– A Class 10 pole has the smallest diameter (or


circumference) and hence lowest capacity

– Class H6 is largest in size and hence has the


highest capacity

 Wood poles for transmission applications are,


typically, Class 2 or higher
Wood Pole Classification System (cont.)

Horizontal Load Horizontal Load


Class Class
(lbs) (lbs)

H6 11,400 H1 5,400
H5 10,000 1 4,500
H4 8,700 2 3,700
H3 7,500 3 3,000
H2 6,400 4 2,400

Note: Horizontal load applied 2 ft from top of pole


Wood Pole Classification System (cont.)

 ANSI assumes horizontal force (H) applied 2 ft from


top of pole
 In this classification, pole is assumed to be buried
at a depth of 10% of pole height + 2 ft.
 We can, therefore, calculate a ground line moment
due to the horizontal force (applied 2 ft. from top)
 Based on calculated ground line moment the
required wood pole section modulus (ground line
diameter) can be determined
 Hence, minimum circumference required ( * dia.)
for given class was established by ANSI
Illustrated Example #1

Class of wood pole selected = H1


 Pole Species = Douglas Fir (rupture bending strength = 8000
psi)

 Length of pole = 80 ft

 Depth of embedment = 10 ft

 Length of pole above ground = 80 – 10 = 70 ft

 Horizontal force (H) applied 2 ft from top = 5.4 kips

 Ground line moment = 5.4 * (70 - 2)

= 367.2 kips-ft = 367.2 * 1000 * 12 lb-in


Example #1 (cont.)

 Based on ground line moment, we determine the


required ground line diameter of pole

 Required section modulus of pole at ground line

= ground line moment/rupture bending strength

= (367.2 * 1000 * 12)/8000 = 550.8 in3

=  d3/32 = 550.8 in3

 Required ground line diameter: d = 17.76 in


Example #1 (cont.)

Note: Refer ANSI tables for 80 ft, Douglas Fir, class H1


 Minimum circumference at top of pole = 29 in
 Minimum circumference 6 ft from butt = 57 in
 Diameter at top of pole: 29/ = 9.231 in
 Diameter 6 ft from butt: 57/ = 18.144 in
 Diameter at ground line:
9.231 + (18.144 - 9.231) * (80 - 10)/(80 - 6) = 17.66 in
 ANSI dimensions closely match derived diameter
through load calculation in earlier slide
 Following similar methodology, wood equivalent
steel poles developed.
Wood Pole Equivalent Steel Poles

In previous versions of the NESC, a load


factor of 2.5 for steel and 4.0 for wood poles
was allowed for Rule 250B - Grade B

Equivalent Impact on
Factors Load Factor Strength Factor
Load Side

Steel poles 2.5 1.00 = 2.5/1.0 = 2.50

Wood poles 4.0 1.00 = 4.0/1.0 = 4.00

Load Factor (LOAD) ≤ Strength Factor (CAPACITY)


Wood Pole Equivalent Steel Poles (cont.)

 Equivalency Factor?

 NESC Grade B District Loading Basis

 Factor = 2.5/4.0 = 0.625


Wood Pole Equivalent Steel Poles (cont.)


Wood Pole Equivalent Steel Poles (cont.)

Source: Valmont SW series


Illustrated Example #2

 Class 2 - Wood Pole


– 80 ft wood pole
– Ground line moment = 251.6 kips-ft (=3.7kips*68ft)

 Class 2 - Wood Pole Equivalent Steel Pole


– 80 ft steel pole
– Ground line moment = 251.6 * 2.5/4 = 157 kips-ft
– Determine section of steel pole that provides a 157 kips-ft
capacity at ground line
– Assume ground line moment variation from point of
horizontal load (H - 2 ft from top) to ground line is linear
– Both poles rated same class at GL for rule 250B - Grade B
construction
Review Sabre Tubular Standard Pole Designs
Sabre Tubular Standard Pole Designs

Enter Pole length


Embedded depth
1st Column - class of pole
2nd - 7th Column (except 6th) – pole dimensions
6th Column – ANSI
9th Column - Ground Line Moment (GLM)
Capacity provided
10th Column - required Ground Line Moment
Illustrated Example #3

 Enter Pole length: 80 ft

 Embedded depth: 10% plus 2 ft

 First Column – pole class – assume H3

 6th Column - ANSI wood pole load = 7500 lbs


 ANSI equivalent load steel pole = 7500 * 2.5/4.0

 4688 lbs
Example #3 (cont.)

 10th Column - required GLM = 319 ft-kips


– 7500 * (2.5/4) * (80 - 10 - 2)/1000

– 319 kip-ft
 9th Column - GLM Capacity provided

= 335 kip-ft
Example #3 (cont.)

 2nd - 7th column – pole dimensions


(except 6th Column)
– Top Diameter = 10.1422 inches

– Taper = 0.15067

– Plate thickness = 0.1875 inches

– Bottom Diameter = 21.82 inches


Illustrated Example #4

 Review selection of standard design steel


pole using:

– simplified longhand analysis


Example #4 (cont.)

• Single Steel pole - self support


• Post Insulators on one side
• Total Pole Length = 80 ft
• Embedment depth = 10%+2 ft = 10 ft
• Conductor
• Drake 795-26/7 – ACSR
• Shield Wire
• 3/8” HS
• Wind Span = 750 ft
• Weight Span = 900 ft
Example #4 - Single Steel Pole - self support

Method 1
• Use model of steel pole in
software
• Check whether pole satisfies
the applied loads
(Most pole manufacturers supply
their pole models of standard
series database in PLS Pole-
method 4 structures)
Example #4 - Single Steel Pole - self support

Method 2
Quick approximate method
• Calculate total ground line
moment and compare it to the
standard series ground line
moment and select appropriate
standard steel pole class
Example #4 - Single Steel Pole - self support

Method 2
Loading:
Rule250B (Medium) – Grade B
Moment at ground line due to:
• Wind on one shield wire
• Wind on three conductors
• Wind pressure on pole
• P-Delta loads
• Vertical offset of vertical loads
at insulator attachment point
Example #4 - Single Steel Pole - self support

Method 2 (See “Unsupported Steel


Pole_Standard Series Steel Pole
Selection_Updated”
Spreadsheet)
• Ground Line Moment due to:
• Wind on one shield wire
• Wind on three conductors
• Wind pressure on pole
• P-Delta loads
• Vertical offset of vertical loads
at insulator attachment point
Example #4 - Single Steel Pole - self support

Method 2
• Ground Line Moment (kip-ft) due to:
• Wind on One Shield wire + Wind
on Three Conductors (209.2)
• Wind Pressure on pole (28.2)
• P-Delta Loads (35.7)
• Vertical offset of vertical loads at
insulator attachment point (30.8)
Example #4 - Single Steel Pole - self support

Method 2
• Total Moment (kip-ft) at ground line:
= 209.2 + 28.2 + 35.7 + 30.8
= 304.4
• Use Sabre Tubular Standard Pole designs
• Pole class STS-H3 have minimum ANSI
ground line moment capacity of 319 kip-ft
(Actual capacity=335)
• Therefore, pole will satisfy ground line
moment capacity requirement
Different Loading Case – same problem

What happens when a different loading case


governs the design of steel pole in previous
example problem?
Illustrated Example #5 - different
loading case
 Ground line moment under Rule 250B =
304.4 kip-ft (District Load Case)

 Ground line moment under Rule 250C =


355.6 kip-ft (Extreme Wind Load Case)

 Ground line moment under Rule 250D =


222.8 kip-ft (Extreme ice with concurrent
wind)
Example #5 (cont.)

 Maximum Ground Line moment under Rule


250C = 355.6 kip-ft (Extreme Wind Load Case)

 Selection of STS-H3 will not work in this case


based on Ground Line Moment capacity

 Next higher class of steel pole (STS-H4) with


a Ground Line moment capacity of 404 kip-ft
> 355.6 kip-ft will be required
Equivalency Factor – Recent Issues

 In the latest NESC, the method left out in


the code is factors are provided on both
sides of load and strength

 The previous method (using a load factor of


2.5 for steel and 4.0 for wood poles) has
been eliminated in the new code
Equivalency Factor Issues (cont.)

Factors Load Factor Strength Factor Equivalent impact on Load Side

Steel poles 2.5 1.00 = 2.5/1.0 = 2.50

Wood poles 2.5 0.65 = 2.5/0.65 = 3.85

Factors are applied both on load and strength side for


Rule 250B
• These factors are used for Grade B construction
• Equivalent impact of factors on either side of load
and strength are brought to the load side in last
column of table for a comparison with first method
Equivalency Factor Issues (cont.)

Note the slight variation equivalency factors

 In previous method, factor = 2.5/4.0 = 0.625

 Current method, factor = 2.5/3.85 = 0.650


Equivalency Factor Issues (cont.)

 Approximately 4% extra capacity required in


the minimum GL moments using ANSI
wood poles for same class of pole:

= (0.65 - 0.625)/0.65 = 4%

 Therefore, steel pole manufacturers may


have to update their designs using second
method for Rule 250B
Equivalency Factor Issues (cont.)

 For example, moment capacity required for an 80 ft


Class 2 wood pole equivalent steel pole using the
first method is 157 kips-ft at ground line

 Minimum Ground line moment = 251.6 x 2.5/4


= 157 kips-ft

 Minimum Moment capacity required for an 80 ft


Class 2 wood pole equivalent steel pole, using the
second method is 163.4 kips-ft at ground line

 Ground line moment = 251.6 x 2.5/3.85


= 163.4 kips-ft
Equivalency Factor Issues (cont.)

 What about equivalency based on Rule


250C-Grade B construction?
 In that case the factor is 0.75 (1/1.33)

Equivalent impact on
Factors Load Factor Strength Factor
Load Side
Steel poles 1.0 1.00 =1.0/1.0 = 1.0
Wood poles 1.0 0.75 =1.0/0.75 = 1.33
Equivalency Factor Issues (cont.)

 Like-for-like replacement of wood poles


with steel poles
 Old line built with wood poles
 Recent replacements are done using wood
equivalent steel poles (Class H1 wood pole
replaced by Class H1 steel pole)
 Is there any fallacy? It depends!
Illustrated Example #6

Consider another hypothetical problem:


 A 138 kV line constructed with Western Red
Cedar poles 8 years ago
 A wood pole is hit by a car and engineer
decided to replace pole with an equivalent
steel pole
 Existing wood pole class is H1
 The engineer decided to replace this wood
pole with equivalent steel pole class of H1
Illustrated Example-6

 Here is the issue – the planned replacement


steel pole is based on equivalency factor of
0.625 (=2.5/4)

 Load case that controlled the existing wood


pole design is Rule 250C (Extreme Wind)
and not Rule 250B (District Load Case)

 Therefore, the steel pole will need to have


extra capacity

 The equivalency factor for Rule 250C is 0.75


Equivalency Factor_Issues

 Governing Load Case

– As discussed above, governing load


case is an important consideration
Equivalency Factor_Issues

There is no true equivalency? What do you


think?

Per ASCE/SEI 48-11, “the use of steel poles


for applications designed for standard-class
wood poles often refers to the poles as
“wood equivalent” steel poles. However,
this is a MISNOMER as it is impossible to
equate the properties of a steel pole to those
of a wood pole under all load conditions”
Wood Pole Equivalent Steel Poles

Per RUS (1724 E-214)

“it is impossible to completely equate the


steel pole and wood pole at all points
along the pole. The owner must be certain
that the steel pole selected by equivalency
methods will have strength sufficient for
the actual application”
Issues to be Considered

 Differences in steel and wood material and


sectional properties cause variations in:

– Deflection

– Secondary moment

– Applied wind force

– Buckling capacity
Equivalency Factor_Issues

 Analysis of steel pole


– Is equivalency just at ground line sufficient?

– Normally, maximum moment occurs at ground line


for a self-supported single pole

– What about H-frame structures?

– Moments are considerable at cross arm and cross


brace attachment locations

– Selected steel pole must have sufficient capacity


at critical locations along pole length
Equivalency Factor_Issues

 Grade of Construction

– Grade B standards are used

– What about Grade C?


Equivalency Factor_Issues

 P-Delta Loads
– Are P-Delta loads the same for both wood pole
and equivalent class steel pole?

– The answer is no!

– Pole deflection depends upon stiffness of pole


section and is different between wood and
steel poles

– This difference shall be taken in to account


Equivalency Factor_Issues

 Pole Surface Area


– The diameters of wood and equivalent steel
poles are different

– Therefore, wind load acting on pole itself is


different

– The foundation capacity can be different for


direct embedment poles as well
Equivalency Factor_Issues

 Guyed Poles
– For guyed poles, the pole buckling capacity is an
important consideration

– The buckling capacity of a steel pole can be less


than that of an equivalent wood pole

– Standard class steel poles are thin walled, hollow


structures with limited buckling capacity when
compared to equivalent solid wood poles

– Analysis differences in guyed steel pole vs. wood


pole
Equivalency Factor_Issues

 Weight of Poles
– Steel poles are general lighter compared to
wood pole

– Uplift resistance is relatively less in steel poles


Equivalency Factor_Issues

 Connections
– Local buckling of steel pole section at X-brace
connection in H-frames

– Davit arms can cause concentrated forces


Equivalency Factor_Issues

 Bearing area
– Wood poles bottom transfer axial loads to soil
under base

– What about galvanized steel poles with bottom


open?
Equivalency Factor_Issues

 Differences in Manufacturer Pole Capacities


– All manufacturers satisfy minimum capacity
requirements per ANSI

– However, depending on steel pole geometry,


capacities of same class of pole can be different

– Steel poles from different vendors differ in taper,


cross-sectional properties such as diameters and
thicknesses
Equivalency Factor_Issues

 Differences in Manufacturer Pole Capacities


– If you perform structural analysis using one
vendor class “x” pole and then use a different
vendor’s class “x” pole, there is a possibility for
overloading steel pole

– This is especially a concern when utilization ratio


used in your analysis is close to 100%
Equivalency Factor_Issues

 What is the solution?

 As you long as you know the steel pole


geometry and use the structural analysis
software for calculations and use the
same poles in the field, you are fine.

 It is now more confusing and I am sure


many utility engineers are not addressing
the issues we discussed in their routine
designs.