|







 
 



 
 

  


Design & Testing of Steel Poles

- presented by -

Richard F. Aichinger, PE
Manager of Engineering, Utility Products
Valmont Industries, Inc.

|
 





 


ëEquivalency´ to what?
± Expected Strength
± Expected Life
± Expected Performance
‡ Deflection
‡ Handling
‡ Field Use

|
 




 
 


‡ Most pole used to date have been wood

‡ How do you design a ëSteel wood pole´?
± You can¶t « but you don¶t want to
± Instead you 
 a pole that meets minimum
strength and performance requirements every
time

|
 




 
 


‡ How do you design a ëSteel Distribution

Pole´?
± ANSI Standards:
‡ ANSI 05.1
‡ National Electric Safety Code (ANSI C-2)
± ASCE Manual 72
± Material & Manufacturing Proven Reliability
± Testing and Proven Product Experience
|
 




 |!"#$%

‡ Provides performance and quality criteria

for wood poles of various species
‡ Provides strength requirements which
define the various pole Class definition
(Class 6 to H-6)
± Defined by a Capacity Loading to be applied 2
feet from the pole top
‡ Provides direct embedment depth

|
 




!  
 
&

'|!&()

‡ A Safety Code
‡ By default, also a Design Code
± Provides for Design considerations for various
line conditions (ice, wind + ice, wind)
± Provides for Construction Grades to
differentiate the allowable risk accepted in the
design

|
 




!  
 
&

'|!&()

A Little History:
‡ Provided for loading and strength since the
early 1900¶s to present
‡ Early editions were based on ultimate
strength of materials
‡ Steel was first to be changed to Load
Factor in 1941
|
 




!  
 
&

'|!&()

‡ 1941 Summary:
± Material Grade B Grade C
‡ Steel 2.54 2.2
‡ wood 25% 37.5%
± (equiv. OLF) (4.0) (2.67)

|
 




!  
 
&

'|!&()

‡ 1973 Wood was modified:

± Material Grade B Grade C
‡ Steel 2.54 2.2
‡ wood 25% 50%
± (equiv. OLF) (4.0) (2.0)
± Familiar?
± wood is now lower than steel in Grade C.
‡ 1997 Edition introduced Strength Factors
|
 




 !  
 
&

'|!&()

1997 Edition Grade B:

Strength Factor Equiv. O.L.F.

Load Type Overload Steel Wood Steel Wood Ratio
Vertical 1.5 1.0 0.65 1.5 2.31 0.65
Transverse
Wind 2.5 1.0 0.65 2.5 3.85 0.65

Tension 1.65 1.0 0.65 1.65 2.54 0.65

|
 




 !  
 
&

'|!&()

1997 Edition Grade C:

Strength Factor Equiv. O.L.F. Ratio
Load Type Overload Steel Wood Steel Wood
Vertical 1.5 1.0 0.85 1.5 1.76 0.85
Transverse
Wind 2.2 (steel) 1.0 0.85 2.2 2.06 1.07
1.75(wood)
Tension 1.1 (steel) 1.0 0.85 1.1 1.53 0.72
1.3 (wood)

|
 




 |& *(

‡ ëThe Steel Pole Design Guide´

‡ Provides for the best practices of the
industry
‡ Provides for the Design Requirements
equated to:
± AISC
± ACI
± AWS
|
 




 
 


‡ ëEquivalent Wood Pole´ Loading (B):

± ANSI Load x 2.5/4.0
ANSI 05.1 Working ëEquivalent´
Pole Class Loading Load Steel Load
2 3700 # 925 # 2313 #
3 3000 750 1875
4 2400 600 1500
5 1900 475 1188

|
 




 
 


‡  
  


    
± 
  
 

‡    
‡     !
‡  
 
 "#!$%
&!
± 
   
 

‡    
‡     
‡  
 
 "#$%
'
|
 




 
 


‡  
  


    
± 
  
 

‡    
‡     !
‡  
 
 "#!$%
&!
± 
  (#  
    )
‡    '
‡     &*!
‡  
 
 "#
&*!$'% +, (-
')
|
 




 
 


‡ Steel Allows for Designs that Consistently meet

strength requirements by varying diameter and
thickness
‡ ASCE Manual 72 provides criteria for Local
Buckling of Tubular Steel
± Proven through years of use in other products
± Verified by EPRI and manufacturer testing
‡ Provides a pole that is consistent ëby design´

|
 




 
 +

‡ Steel Allows for the Design of a Product that can

be protected against deterioration
± Galvanizing provides a proven inside/out protection
for most environments
± An additional groundline barrier coating provides
extra protection at the most corrosive location
± When damaged by overload conditions, Steel will
tend to locally yield rather than ëbreak´ or ëcollapse´,
often times allowing the line to remain in service

|
 




 
 
  

‡ Deflection of steel poles are normally less than

the ëequivalent wood pole´ based on the pole
size defined by ANSI 05.1
‡ The following graph shows a representative
comparison indicating the deflection of a Steel
versus wood poles

|
 




 + 


  

$,


'-"& -.!&/

0 )

i
  . /

 
(  0 / 
 0 /   )

[[ [[

[ [[

[ [[

[ [[
i
  . / (./)

[ [[

r r
[ [[  






r
[ [[

[ [[

[ [[

[ [[

[ [[
















[[ [[ [[ [[
[[[

[[
[[
[[
[[
[[
[[
[[ 
[[ [[ [[

./1( )

|
 




 
 
  

‡ Weight of steel poles are normally much less

than the ëequivalent wood pole´ providing added
savings for field handling and maneuvering
‡ The following chart is a representative
comparison of the weight of wood poles versus
Steel Poles

|
 




,
& 1  ,
 

 [[

[[[
 

[[



a We  


ee

eWe  


[[[

[[

[
      

[ [ [    [ [ [ [
 

 /

|
 




 
 
  

‡ Additionally, Steel can be Designed for true

design applications wood is seldom correctly
considered for:
± Guyed angles and corners
‡ NESC requirements:

± Unguyed angles and corners

‡ Steel provides the necessary strength and flexibility of size
and application

|
 




 
 2
 

‡ Steel Poles have been successfully used:

± for over 30 years for the Electric Utility industry
± for over 40 years with the same product in other
industries (lighting and traffic)
‡ Fabrication and Quality systems have evolved to
keep up with customer demand, technology, and
increasing Design sophistication

|
 




 
 



‡ Steel Poles have been tested for as long as Steel

Poles have been fabricated. But there is a
difference:
± Steel Poles are tested to Verify Design strength is
attained as a Minimum
± wood poles are tested to determine the mean rupture
strength

|
 




 
 



‡ Steel Distribution Poles have been tested by

independent firms (EDM in Fort Collins) and by
the manufacturers using controlled conditions
and sophisticated systems.
± Strength / Buckling tests to verify design acceptance
for conditions including:
‡ full tube sections
‡ tube sections with many cut holes to verify that condition
‡ attachment and guy hardware loading
± All showing the Strength and Reliability of Steel

|
 




    
3



|
 




 /|

3



|
 




 2
3*"& (



|
 





2'& ()
'& 45#)
   
 
 ! 
" #  $ 
 
 




'%%
'%%%
%%
 "&
|,, 

$ 
 - 
 .

%%%  &
%%
 
%%%
 
&%%  '
 
&%%%
%%
%
(

%(

(

'%(

*%
'%

')

%)

+%)
'()

'%)

')

%)

)
     

|
 




Steel Distribution Poles - The Material of the Future

|
 




Steel Distribution Poles - The Material of the Future

In Conclusion:
‡ Steel Distribution Poles Provide
± Expected Strength
± Expected Life
± Expected Performance in
‡ Deflection
‡ Handling
‡ Field Use
|