Master's Thesis in Structural Engineering

Weight reduction of concrete poles

for the Swedish power line grid
Using a Finite Element Model to optimize geometry
in relation to load requirements

Author: Jenny Bülow Angeling

Surpervisor (LNU): Michael Dorn
Surpervisor company: Rikard Bolmsvik (Abetong)
Examinar: Björn Johannesson

Course Code: 4BY35E

Semester: Spring 2017, 15 credits
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Technology
Department of Building Technology
Abstract
Because of an eventual ban of creosote-impregnated products, alternative materials
for poles used in the electrical grid are needed. Concrete is one alternative and spun
concrete poles have been manufactured for the Swedish grid before. These poles are
still in use since the high strength and good functioning. However, they weigh too
much in terms of the way that poles are assembled on the grid today. Therefore, a
study comparing the capacity of different geometries, resulting in lower weight, is of
interest.

In this Master’s Thesis, crack initiation and compressive failure in concrete poles are
examined by creating FE-models in the software BRIGADE/Plus, using concrete
damage plasticity. Thus, guidance is provided about how thin the concrete walls can
be made without risking failure – which also means how low the weight of such a
pole can be.

The failure most likely to occur is a compressive failure in the concrete with a ductile
behavior. The result shows that a geometry change, which implies a thinner concrete
wall, is possible. This means a weight reduction between 30-75 % or even more,
depending on which network the poles are designed for.

Keywords: FE-model, Finite Element model, Concrete damage plasticity, Fracture

mechanics, Fracture energy, Pole

III
IV
Acknowledgement
This Master’s Thesis is the final step when finishing the Master Program in
Structural Engineering at the Department of Building Technology at Linnæus
University in Växjö. The report and analysis has been conducted at Abetong AB in
Växjö between Mars and May 2017.

I would like to thank my supervisors, senior lecturer Michael Dorn at the Department
of Building Technology at Linnæus University, and Rikard Bolmsvik, at Abetong
AB in Växjö, for guidance during my work.

Jenny Bülow Angeling

Växjö 23th of May 2017

V
VI
Table of contents
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION........................................................................................IX
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM DESCRIPT ION ............................................................................................... 2
1.2 A IM AND PURPOSE........................................................................................................................................ 4
1.3 HYPOTHESIS AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Hypothesis ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Limitations........................................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 RELIABILITY, VALIDITY AND OBJECTIVITY................................................................................................. 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................7
2.1 CONCRETE POLES AND COLUMNS REINFORCED BY HIGH-STRENGTH STEEL.............................................. 7
2.1.1 Ductile or brittle failure of reinforced concrete poles...................................................................... 7
2.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF POLES........................................................................................................ 8
2.2.1 Finite Element Analysis of reinforced concrete poles ...................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Finite Element Analysis of other types of poles ................................................................................ 9
2.3 FRACTURE ENERGY AND HOW TO HANDLE IT IN FE-MODELLING SOFTWARE ........................................... 9
2.3.1 Measure fracture energy by testing ................................................................................................... 9
2.3.2 Fracture energy in ATENA and ABAQUS.......................................................................................10
3. THEORY...............................................................................................................13
3.1 PROPERTIES AND BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE............................................................................................... 13
3.1.1 Strength classes.................................................................................................................................13
3.1.2 Non-linear behavior for compressed concrete according to Eurocode ........................................14
3.1.3 Behavior of concrete in tension........................................................................................................15
3.1.4 Reinforced concrete ..........................................................................................................................16
3.2 FRACTURE MECHANICS OF CONCRETE ...................................................................................................... 18
3.2.1 Fracture energy.................................................................................................................................18
3.2.2 Stress-strain relations for short term compression.........................................................................20
3.2.3 Stress-strain and stress-crack relations for short term tension .....................................................22
3.3 PROPERTIES AND BEHAVIOR OF STEEL ...................................................................................................... 24
3.3.1 Prestressed steel ................................................................................................................................24
3.4 DESIGNING POLES AND COLUMNS ............................................................................................................. 25
3.4.1 Mode of actions of slender poles and columns ...............................................................................25
3.4.2 Elementary cases for beams with a fixed attachment .....................................................................26
3.4.3 Prevented transverse expansion.......................................................................................................26
3.4.4 Design loads for poles to the power line grid .................................................................................27
3.4.5 Bending test on poles ........................................................................................................................28
3.5 THE FINITE ELEMENT M ETHOD................................................................................................................. 28
3.5.1 The modelling software BRIGADE/Plus .........................................................................................29
3.5.2 Fracture mechanics in BRIGADE/Plus ...........................................................................................29
4. METHODS AND IMPLEMENTATION ..............................................................33
4.1 FIELD TEST.................................................................................................................................................. 33
4.1.1 Test model..........................................................................................................................................33
4.1.2 Test set up ..........................................................................................................................................33
4.2 A NALYSIS IN BRIGADE/PLUS .................................................................................................................. 35
4.2.1 Geometrical modeling in the part-module.......................................................................................35
4.2.2 Material model for concrete .............................................................................................................36
4.2.3 Material model for steel....................................................................................................................38
4.2.4 Element types and sizes ....................................................................................................................39
4.2.5 Load steps..........................................................................................................................................39
4.2.6 Loads and boundary conditions.......................................................................................................40

VII
 4.2.7 Prestressed tendons and prestressing force ....................................................................................41
4.3 A NALYSIS OF THE RESULTS........................................................................................................................ 41
4.3.1 Analysis of the results from the field test .........................................................................................41
4.3.2 Analysis of the results in BRIGADE/Plus........................................................................................42
5. RESULTS ..............................................................................................................43
5.1 FIELD TEST.................................................................................................................................................. 43
5.2 BASE M ODEL 1........................................................................................................................................... 43
5.2.1 Maximum load, failure load and crack load ...................................................................................44
5.2.2 Displacement .....................................................................................................................................45
5.2.3 Stresses and strains in the concrete .................................................................................................47
5.2.4 Stresses and strains in the reinforcement ........................................................................................50
5.3 OPTIMIZED FE-MODELS ............................................................................................................................. 52
5.3.1 Failure load and displacement for Models 2-6 ...............................................................................52
5.3.2 Stresses and strains in Models 2-6...................................................................................................53
6. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................55
6.1 FIELD TEST.................................................................................................................................................. 55
6.1 M ODEL 1..................................................................................................................................................... 55
6.2 TYPE OF FAILURE ....................................................................................................................................... 55
6.3 COMPARISON OF FE-MODELS AND TEST RESULTS .................................................................................... 56
6.4 W EIGHT REDUCTION OF T HE POLE............................................................................................................. 58
7. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................61
7.1 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FIELD TEST AND M ODEL 1 .......................................................................... 61
7.2 RELIABILITY OF THE RESULTS FOR THE OPTIMIZED MODELS ................................................................... 61
7.3 THE CHOICE OF METHODS .......................................................................................................................... 61
8. CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................63
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................65

VIII
Symbol description
Symbol Description
𝐴 Area
𝐴𝑐 Cross section area concrete
𝐴𝑠 Cross section area of steel bar
𝐴 𝑠.𝑡𝑜𝑡 Total cross section area of steel bars
𝐸 Modulus of elasticity
𝐸𝑐𝑚 Mean value for the modulus of elasticity
𝐸𝑑 Design load
𝐸𝑝 Design value for modulus of elasticity for steel
𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑖 Initial force in tendons
𝐹𝑛 Load applied at bending test
𝐹𝑢 Maximum load, failure load
𝐹𝑥 Initial stress in tendons, prior to anchoring at distance 𝑥 from cable end
𝐺𝑓 Fracture energy, absorbed per unit crack area
𝐺𝑓0 Base value of fracture energy
𝐺𝐾 Characteristic value for permanent loads
𝐻𝑖 Vertical load caused by imperfections
𝐼 Increment size
𝐼𝑖 Moment of inertia
𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum increment size
𝐼𝑚𝑖𝑛 Minimum increment size
𝐾 Yield surface in the deviatory plane
𝐿 Length
𝐿𝑑 Length of the damage zone
𝑁 Normal force, axial force
𝑁𝑐𝑟 Crack load
𝑁𝑢 Ultimate load
𝑀 Bending moment
𝑃 Point load
𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡 Total pressure
𝑇𝑠 Time period for one step

IX
𝑑𝑖 Diameter
𝑒𝑖 Unintentional eccentricity
𝑓𝑐𝑑 Design value for the compressive strength for concrete
𝑓𝑐𝑘 Characteristic compressive strength for concrete cylinder
𝑓𝑐𝑘.𝑐𝑢𝑏𝑒 Characteristic compressive strength for concrete cube
𝑓𝑐𝑚 Mean value for the cylindrical compressive strength
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑑 Design value for the concrete tensile strength
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑘0.05 Tensile strength, lower characteristic value
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑘0.95 Tensile strength, upper characteristic value
𝑓𝑡𝑚 Mean value for the cylindrical tensile strength
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚.𝑓𝑙 Mean value for tensile strength, increased by 𝑘
𝑓𝑛 Displacement, corresponding to the load 𝐹𝑛
𝑓𝑝𝑘 Characteristic tensile strength for prestressing steel
𝑓𝑝0.1𝑘 Characteristic strength at the strain 0.1%
𝑓𝑦𝑘 Yield stress for steel
ℎ Height
ℎ𝑎 Distance from the top of a pole to the applied load
𝑘 Coefficient
𝑙 Length
𝑙0 Effective length or buckling length
𝑟 Radius
𝑡 Thickness
𝑤 Deformation, crack width
𝛼𝑐𝑐 Coefficient for long term effects on compression strength
𝛼𝑐𝑡 Coefficient for long term effects on the tensile strength
𝛾𝐶 Partial factor for concrete
𝛾𝐺 Partial factor for permanent actions
𝛾𝑠 Partial factor for the prestressed steel
𝛾𝑄 Partial factor for variable actions
𝜀𝑐 Compressive strain
̃εin
c Compressive inelastic strain
𝑝𝑙
𝜀̃𝑐 Plastic strain

X
𝜀𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚 Strain at 𝜎𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚 = 0.5𝑓𝑐𝑚.
𝜀𝑐1 Strain at maximum stress 𝑓𝑐𝑚
𝜀𝑐𝑢1 Strain at ultimate limit state
𝜀𝑑 Average additional strain
εm Average strain
𝜀s Strain in steel
𝜇 Friction coefficient
𝜈 Poisson’s ratio
𝜌 Density
𝜀𝑢𝑘 Characteristic strain for prestressing steel
𝜎𝑐 Stress in concrete
𝜎𝑐𝑛 Stress in concrete from moment
𝜎𝑐𝑚 Stress in concrete from normal force
∅𝑡𝑜𝑝 Top diameter
∅𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 Bottom diameter
𝜓 Dilation angle

XI
XII
1. Introduction
There are over 10 million km of power lines in Europe [1]. The electrical
network grid consists of overhead lines and underground cables. When
choosing material for the poles, used to carry overhead lines, there are
several factors taken into account, including the age-depended fragility for
the materials, the life cycle cost (LCC) and the environmental impact [2].

There are several different materials used for poles, carrying overhead lines.
Steel, wood and concrete are three common materials used in Europe.
According to Tanifener [3] concrete is to prefer of those three materials
because of its durability and low maintenance require and also because of
environmental and economic reasons. According to Bolin and Smith [4]
wood poles impregnated with pentachlorophenol (penta), which is an
organochlorine, is a better alternative than concrete and steel in case of fossil
fuel, acid rain and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but that penta-treated
poles result in more smog than both concrete and steel poles. When
comparing different materials for poles in a report from the Swedish
Environmental Research Institute [5], concrete is a better alternative than
steel when comparing both energy consumption and environmental impact,
such as climate change, acidification and eutrophication. However, steel
poles are often very high and are able to carry overhead lines with a great
span between the poles, which make them a good alternative to the parts of
the electrical network with extra high voltage.

When comparing concrete with wood impregnated with creosote, which is a

carbonaceous chemical, CO 2-emissions are larger for concrete than the
creosote-treated wood [6]. However, in this study the life span for the
product made of concrete is 50 years but for concrete poles it is often
determined to minimum 80 years, which will affect the results in a LCA. In
another study, comparing alternative pole materials for the Swedish market,
and the lifespan is equal to 80 years, the concrete pole is considered to be a
very good alternative [7]. Over its total lifetime the concrete pole still has a
larger carbon footprint than the wooden pole, but the fact that concrete is a
material that could be recycled and also that it is not containing hazardous
materials is making it a recommended alternative. Steel, however, is the
least recommended material according to all mentioned studies when taking
economy, environment and also the weight that affects mounting into
account.

To sum up, the main problem with both penta and creosote is not the
emissions, but the containment of hazardous materials, which has negative
effects of human exposure and at the sites where these products are used or
stored. These effects are considered sufficiently problematic for other
options to be interesting, even if it means a greater contribution to emissions.
Efforts to reduce material consumption in these alternative products are
therefore of great importance.

1
1.1 Background and problem description

In Sweden, the electrical grid consists of almost 900 000 km lines, of which
approximately 300 000 km are overhead lines [8]. The grid is separated into
three different network levels, depending on voltage; the local network,
mostly consisting of lines with 0.2 and 0.4 kV, called low and medium
voltage; regional network, with voltage between 40-130 kV, called high
voltage; and the national grid, mostly with voltage 220 and 400 kV, called
extra high voltage. Today, the Swedish local and regional power line grid
consists largely of creosote-impregnated power poles.

As mentioned before, creosote is a carbonaceous chemical, used to

impregnate wood. This is made to protect the wood against infestation of
wood decaying fungi. Creosote is classified as carcinogenic [9]. Several
substances in creosote have hazardous properties and some of those are
persistent, poisonous and can accumulate in living tissue. In areas where
creosote-treated poles are used, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
occur in the groundwater [10].

The European Union is undergoing a review that could lead to a ban of

creosote from year 2018 [9]. Therefore, there is a need for alternative
material for poles on the Swedish market. Suppliers on the market are
actively working to find alternative pole materials [11]. Materials considered
competitive are steel, concrete, wood veneer and glass-fiber composite [7]
[11]. Pole materials that are used today, except for creosote impregnated
wood, are spruce veneer, glass fiber reinforced polyester (called composite
pole) and steel. Veneer and composite poles are mainly used in the local
electricity network and steel poles in the national grid. Poles made of
concrete have been manufactured in the past and is still considered to be an
interesting option if it would go into production [12]. Moreover, in
comparison with, for example, the veneer pole, it can be an alternative to the
creosote impregnated pole both in the local and regional electricity network.
Right now, in the beginning of 2017, there are no manufacturing of concrete
poles in Sweden.

Abetong manufactured poles made of spun concrete for the Swedish grid in
the 1990’s [12]. These poles, shaped as a coned hollow cylinder with
prestressed reinforcement, are still in use due the high strength and good
functioning. However, they weigh too much in terms of the way that poles
are assembled on the grid today. According to Vattenfall and E.ON [12],
electricity distribution companies in Sweden, a weight reduction would
make the concrete pole a competitive alternative on the Swedish market.
Furthermore, a weight reduction resulting in lower production costs, leading
to a more economic competitive alternative, and, not least, less emissions of
CO2.

Poles to the Swedish power line grid should be designed for different load
cases, taking into account permanent loads, wind load, ice load, construction

2
and maintenance loads as well as safety loads, which requires the capacity to
withstand torque due to e.g. the uneven load due to cable breakage
(according to the Swedish Standards for electrical powerlines, [13] [14]
[15]). When testing poles according to the European Standard for masts and
poles [16], the load in relation to deflection under bending, the maximum
load capacity and the torque capacity should be measured. Following the
classification of wood poles, often used as basis in Sweden, the poles must
obtain a given load capacity for a load applied as a vertical point load 0.2 m
from the top [17]. For poles in the local network this capacity varies between
3.5-7.8 kN, where the most common pole, called model G (as in the Swedish
word grov, meaning coarse), must have the capacity of 4.5 kN. The
Research Institute of Sweden (RISE) has conducted buckling, bending and
torsional tests on wood poles of the model G and, except for the
requirements mentioned above, the result gives a picture of the capacity
needed when designing poles of different materials [18]. Capacity
requirements increase for poles used in the regional network and the size of
it depends on several things, such as where the poles will be placed
geographically, what distance there should be between them and which type
of line they shall bear.

In the beginning of this study, an old concrete pole was drawn to failure out
in the field, where it had stand for about 20 years. The outcome of the test
gave a perception about the behavior of the pole. The test included loading
to a certain load level and thereafter unloading before loading it again until
failure. The result of the field test showed that this type of concrete pole has
a higher strength than required, which means that it has an excessive size.
Because of the need of new alternative on the market in combination with
the requirement to limit the weight, it is of great interest to examine the
strength of poles of this type in more ways than by hand calculations. This
provides a picture of realistic dimensions of concrete poles for the Swedish
power line grid.

Finite Element Modelling is a numerical simulation tool, useful for

understanding the behavior of a model at different loads. By creating a
Finite Element Model (FE-model) that captures the behavior of the concrete
pole that was drawn to failure in the field, it will be possible to examine the
expected behavior of models with different geometries. By stressing the
materials to the limit, a good picture of the possible size reduction will be
obtained, while still fulfilling the requirements for poles. The results of the
simulations will also be compared to the capacity of wood poles, used in the
local network today.

The purpose with this Master’s Thesis is to examine the compressive or

tensile failure and crack initiation by creating a FE-model in the software
BRIGADE/Plus. Thus, guidance about how thin wall of concrete, which also
means how low weight, that can be achieved without risking failure will be
provided. As mentioned above, this is important when designing poles to the

3
 Swedish electricity grid, to be able to assemble them with the same methods
used for wood poles today.

1.2 Aim and purpose

The aim with this Master’s Thesis is to

- establish a FE-model that is able to capture the behavior of a tested pole

in full scale,

- optimize the FE-model, with the behavior as above, by using different

geometries reducing overall weight, but still fulfilling load requirements,
and

- deliver an investigation on the failure most likely to occur when the pole
is loaded to the ultimate limit (crack initiation in serviceability state will
also be included in the model).

The purpose is to examine the possibility of making a concrete pole to the

Swedish power line grid, with as low weight as possible, to facilitate
transport and assembling on the electricity grid, but still meeting the load
requirement.

1.3 Hypothesis and limitations

1.3.1 Hypothesis

By changing the geometry of a concrete pole the weight will be reduced.

A pole with a reduced geometry and lower weight, compared with concrete
poles manufactured at Abetong before, is still going to fulfill load
requirements for the pole.

By creating a FE-model and examining compression and/or tension failure

of a concrete section, it will be possible to obtain a good prediction about
which type of failure that will occur for a pole when loading it to the
ultimate limit.

1.3.2 Limitations

In this Thesis concrete with the strength 105 MPa, for a 100 mm cube, will
be examined.

4
 In the model, created in BRIGADE/Plus, the reinforcement will be
embedded. This means that it will be full interaction between the
reinforcement and the concrete.

The amount of prestressed reinforcement will not be variated but is limited

to 40 prestressed lines, which is the number used in the pole tested in the
field.

1.4 Reliability, validity and objectivity

By creating a FE-model in the software BRIGADE/Plus, to examine the

behavior of the pole and the concrete, the reliability of this work will
increase, because, if the same parameters are used as in this project, the
outcome will be the same for repeated attempts.

The concrete pole was drawn to failure out in the field, not in a laboratory,
where the test set-up and measurement of the load could be carried out with
full control. Because of that, this test provides an approximate value for the
strength of the pole and its behavior. Therefore, the result would very likely
vary if the test was repeated.

5
6
2. Literature Review
This chapter provides a review over previous reports and articles written on
topics and studies of interest for this thesis. Articles examining reinforced
concrete poles in programs similar to the software BRIGADE/Plus is of
particular interest, but other studies examining the behavior of reinforced
and prestressed concrete will be mentioned. This is made to define which
type of failures of the poles that can be expected. How to take fracture
energy into account will also be addressed.

2.1 Concrete poles and columns reinforced by high-strength steel

In this section, a literature review is done about reinforced columns and

poles made of spun or regular (vibrated) concrete.

2.1.1 Ductile or brittle failure of reinforced concrete poles

According to Kudzys and Kliukas [19], investigations show that failure of

compressed spun concrete members, reinforced with high-strength steel, is
most likely to be ductile. In their study, hollow cubical specimens of spun
concrete, with outer diameters of 500 and 260 mm were used. The
specimens were reinforced with ribbed high-strength steel bars, uniformly
distributed over the cross section. Only when the geometrical reinforcement
ratio, which is the relation between the total cross section area of the
reinforcement, 𝐴 𝑠.𝑡𝑜𝑡 , and the cross section area of the concrete, 𝐴 𝑐,
calculated by

𝜌 = 𝐴𝑠.𝑡𝑜𝑡⁄𝐴𝑐 , (1)

was less than 3% there were a risk for a relative brittle failure. According to
this study, a recommended value for the reinforcement ratio in spun concrete
members is, 3-6%, which means that the total area of the reinforcement
should be between 0.03 ∙ 𝐴 𝑐 and 0.06 ∙ 𝐴 𝑐. This can be compared to the
minimum cross section area of the reinforcement according to the Eurocode
for design of concrete structures [20], which is

𝐴𝑠.𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.002 ∙ 𝐴𝑐 . (2)

In the Eurocode there is no limiting maximum value for the cross section
area of the reinforcement. In the study made by Kudzys and Kliukas only
longitudinal reinforcement was used.

In a study by Kuebler and Polak [21], helical reinforcement was used when
examining torsion failure. Helical reinforcement, which is a type of lateral
reinforcement, counteracts post cracking before failure occurs. When this

7
 was used, the torsion failure of the concrete poles was brittle. The advantage
with helical reinforcement is the prevention of cracks in the concrete during
the release of prestressed reinforcement.

According to the European Standard for overhead electrical lines, EN

50341-1-1, [14], lateral reinforcement, which consists of helical spirals or
lateral ties, is used to control longitudinal cracking from concrete shrinkage,
transversal forces, wedging effects due to prestressed reinforcement or other
sources. Regarding the design of concrete poles, the standard for overhead
electrical lines refers to EN 12843, the Swedish standard for precast masts
and poles [16], in which there are no requirements for lateral reinforcement
if prestressed reinforcement is used. Nevertheless, when lateral
reinforcement is not used the choice should be supported by experience or
testing.

2.2 Finite Element modeling of poles

In this section, a review of literature about Finite Element modeling (FE-

modeling) in programs similar to BRIGADE/Plus, will be provided. Firstly,
articles about reinforced concrete poles will be treated. Thereafter, articles
about other materials, but within the same area of interest when it comes to
behavior investigated and which type of models that have been created, will
be treated.

2.2.1 Finite Element Analysis of reinforced concrete poles

An article, written by Shalaby [22], examining the flexural behavior of spun

concrete poles by using finite element (FE) analysis in the software ANSYS.
Two poles with identical geometry but with different amount of
reinforcement, made by glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars, were
used in the study and the result were compared to experimental data. As the
poles in this thesis, the poles examined by Shalaby [22] are hollow of a
conical shape and tapered from the top and down.

When creating the model in ANSYS boundary conditions were applied to

model support conditions and to prevent out-of-plane displacements [22].
Load was applied as point loads in a line over the nodes on one outer half of
the pole, at a distance of 305 mm from the top of the pole. When comparing
the models made in ANSYS with experimental values, conclusions were
drawn that the FE-model overestimated the compressive strain values, but
failure loads of the FE-model agreed well with loads obtained from
experimental data.

Another article, written by Kenna and Basu [23], describes how the effects
of pre-stressed reinforcement can be taken into account when making FE-
models. It is also including material and geometrical non-linearity, which is

8
 important to take into account when doing concrete models. This study is
about wind turbine towers, which are much larger constructions than the
poles this thesis will cover. Still, the methods used to model the prestressed
concrete towers are of interest and applicable.

Instead of solid elements, Kenna and Basu used shell elements, with six
DOF on each node, and bar elements [23]. The bar elements, with three
DOF per node, where mapped onto the shell elements. The non-linear
behavior of concrete was modelled according to a modified Hognestad
model, described in a report by Kwak and Filippou [24]. This model
captures the uniaxial strain-stress behavior of concrete quite well.

2.2.2 Finite Element Analysis of other types of poles

Masmoudi et al. [25] studied deflections and bending response in GFRP

poles by using a non-linear FE analysis. In this analysis, the non-linear
behavior of tapered hollow poles with lengths between 6 up to around
12 meters under lateral loads where examined. The 3D FE-model was
developed by using the finite element software ADINA, which is a
commercial engineering simulation software program. The type of element
used was an eight-node quadrilateral multilayered shell element with six
DOF at every node (three displacements and three rotations). The models
were divided into three zones from the top to the bottom. As in the study
made by Shalaby [22], boundary conditions were applied to simulate the
support conditions described in standards for poles. A load was applied
300 mm from the top of the pole and the load was varied from zero up to the
ultimate load capacity for each pole. In this case, the load was not applied as
point loads, but as a load distributed over half of the circumference, which is
similar to the load application in this thesis.

2.3 Fracture energy and how to handle it in FE-modelling software

This chapter is treating fracture energy. An explanation of the criterion is

followed by a review of literature written about how to take the fracture
energy into account when doing FE-modelling and analysis.

2.3.1 Measure fracture energy by testing

Fracture energy is, according to Kazemi et al. [26], an evidenced material

parameter important to include in a fracture analysis of concrete. In their
study the fracture energy per unit crack area, 𝐺𝑓, is measured by doing three-
point-bend (3PB) tests on cylindrical specimens made of plain concrete and
steel-fiber-reinforced concrete. Conclusions were drawn, that reinforcement
had a significant effect on the fracture energy and on the post peak region,
where the ductility was increased.

9
 When calculating the fracture energy, according to Kazemi et al. [26], the
work of fracture, which is the total work needed to break a concrete beam,
must be known. This is a method developed by Arne Hillerborg and
recommended by the RILEM Technical Committee. The method is based on
the theory that cracks are accompanied by energy absorption. In an article
describing the influence of fracture energy, written by Markeset and
Hillerborg [27], conclusions were drawn that the slope of the declining
branch of the stress-strain curve will increase with increasing compressive
strength, increase with decreasing fracture energy, increase with increasing
length of the specimen and also increase with increasing slenderness of the
specimen.

In another article, written by Fernándes-Canteli et al. [28], a method called

the modified compact tension (MCT) test is used, instead of 3PB.
Fernándes-Canteli et al. describes 3PB to be the most extended procedure to
obtain the fracture energy, but because the method is both complicated and
requires material and machines to do it they suggesting the MCT as an
alternative. In their article, the way to do the MCT experimentally is
described and also how to simulate it in ABAQUS, which is of interest for
this thesis, since BRIGADE/Plus and ABAQUS are very similar programs.

2.3.2 Fracture energy in ATENA and ABAQUS

Fernándes-Canteli et al. [28] describe two different codes used to perform

numerical simulations of the MCT. The first one is made in the software
ATENA and the second in ABAQUS. In both programs, characteristic input
parameters for young modulus 𝐸, poisons ratio 𝜈, compressive strength 𝑓𝑐
and tensile strength 𝑓𝑡 for concrete were used. A total number of four models
were created in ATENA and ABAQUS; of which one 2D model in ATENA,
using ATENA code; one 2D model in ABAQUS, using ABAQUS code with
rigid bars; and two different 3D models in ABAQUS, using free elastic
lineal bars and ABAQUS intermediate. When studying the results, it is very
clear that results of the 3D models are more consistent with the results from
experiment, compared with results of the 2D models.

In ABAQUS/Standard there is a concrete damage-plasticity model including

compression failure in the concrete, tension-stiffening and dilation angle,
which is a term defining inelastic volumetric change in granular materials,
such as concrete. Mercan et al. [29] describe how to simulate the tension-
stiffening, which is the tensile behavior of concrete after cracking, in
ABAQUS by using cracking criterion based on fracture energy. In their
study, precast prestressed concrete was examined. The concrete was
modelled by using eight-node brick elements. Maximum brick size was
around 100 mm. Prestressed reinforcement was modelled by using two-node
linear 3D truss element, in which initial stresses were introduced to

10
representing pre-stressing forces. This method is an available alternative in
ABAQUS/Standard.

11
12
3. Theory
In this chapter, mathematical models and analysis methods that are relevant
for this study will be described.

3.1 Properties and behavior of concrete

3.1.1 Strength classes

Concrete is a material that is, mainly, made of cement, sand, aggregate and
water. An important property to take into account when dimensioning
concrete is that the tensile strength is much lower than the compressive
strength [30]. The compressive strength of concrete is given by different
strength classes, which are related to the characteristic (5%) cylinder
strength, 𝑓𝑐𝑘, or the characteristic cube strength, 𝑓𝑐𝑘.𝑐𝑢𝑏𝑒 [20]. Concrete with
higher strength class than C50/60 is referred to as high-strength concrete
[31]. The highest recommended value for the compressive strength is
C90/105. The higher the compressive strength is, the lower is the water
cement ratio (wcr) [32], as can be seen in Figure 1a). This is affecting
failure, which becomes more brittle when the compressive strength is getting
higher [30], as shown in Figure 1b).

a) b)
Figure 1: a) Relationship between water-cement ratio and compressive strength, taken from [32], b)
Relationship between the strength class of the concrete and the type of failure. The failure is getting
more brittle when the strength class is getting higher, taken from [30].

Strength and strain properties for high strength concrete classes C55/67-
C90/105, according to EN 1992, can be found in Table 1. The cylindrical
compression strength is called 𝑓𝑐𝑘 and the cubical compression
strength 𝑓𝑐𝑘.𝑐𝑢𝑏𝑒. Other values given in the table are the mean value for
cylindrical compression strength, 𝑓𝑐𝑚; the characteristic tensile strength,
which is given with a lower characteristic value, 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑘0.05, and an upper

13
 characteristic value, 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑘0.95; the mean tensile strength, 𝑓𝑡𝑚; the strain, 𝜀𝑐𝑢1 ,
at maximum stress 𝑓𝑐𝑚; and at last the mean value for the modulus of
elasticity, 𝐸𝑐𝑚.
Table 1: Strength and strain properties for concrete C90/105, according to EN 1992 [20].

𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑓𝑐𝑘 .𝑐𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑓𝑐𝑚 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑘0.05 𝑓𝑡𝑚 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑘0.95 𝜀𝑐𝑢1 𝐸𝑐𝑚

Concrete
class [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [‰] [GPa]

55/67 55 67 63 3.0 4.2 5.5 3.2 38

C60/75 60 75 68 3.1 4.4 5.7 3.0 39

C70/85 70 85 78 3.2 4.6 6.0 2.8 41

C80/95 80 95 88 3.4 4.8 6.3 2.8 42

C90/105 90 105 98 3.5 5.0 6.6 2.8 44

According to EN 1992 exact values for Young’s modulus, 𝐸𝑐𝑚, can be

calculated by

𝑓𝑐𝑚 0.3 (3)

𝐸𝑐𝑚 = 22 ∙ ( ) ,
10

and the mean value for the tensile strength, 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚, for concrete classes above
C50/60 are calculated by

𝑓𝑐𝑚 (4)
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 = 2.12 ∙ 𝑙𝑛 (1 + ),
10

which are useful equations when using properties for concrete decided by
testing, instead of properties from Eurocode.

3.1.2 Non-linear behavior for compressed concrete according to Eurocode

The stress-strain curve of concrete in compression is non-linear from the

beginning [20]. This is shown in Figure 2, where 𝑓𝑐𝑚 is the mean value of
the compressive strength. In the figure, it is described how to calculate a
value for the modulus of elasticity. Because of the non-linearity, the
modulus of elasticity, 𝐸, is changing with the stress level, 𝜎𝑐. The higher the
stress, the lower is the value of the modulus of elasticity. The compressive
strain, 𝜀𝑐 , of the concrete at maximum stress is called 𝜀𝑐1 and the strain at
ultimate limit state, when failure occurs, 𝜀𝑐𝑢1.

14
 Figure 2: Stress-strain relationship for concrete used for non-linear analysis of structure, taken from
EN 1992 [20].

However, for stress less than 0.6 𝑓𝑐𝑚, the stress-strain relationship, is almost
linear [30]. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply the theory of linear elasticity
when doing calculations in serviceability limit state.

The stress-strain relationship for the non-linear analysis is described by

𝜎𝑐 𝑘𝜂 − 𝜂2 (5)
= ,
𝑓𝑐𝑚 1 + (𝑘 − 2)𝜂

where 𝜂 = 𝜀𝑐⁄𝜀𝑐1 [20]. The coefficient 𝑘 is calculated by

|𝜀𝑐1| (6)
𝑘 = 1.05𝐸𝑐𝑚 ∙ ,
𝑓𝑐𝑚

Values of 𝑓𝑐𝑚 and 𝜀𝑐 are taken from Table 1 or calculated by the equations
in Section 3.1.1.

3.1.3 Behavior of concrete in tension

The behavior of concrete in tension is assumed to be linear-elastic for the

uncracked section, which is illustrated in Figure 3a [33]. For a cracked
section the tension can be modelled by using the relation between the stress,
𝜎, and the crack opening, 𝑤, together with the fracture energy, 𝐺𝑓,
illustrated in Figure 3b.

15
.

a) b)
Figure 3: In a) the stress-strain relation for concrete in tension is illustrated and b) shows the stress-
crack opening relation for a cracked section.

The tensile strength of the concrete is much lower than the compressive
strength. The tensile strength increases with increasing compression
strength, but not proportionally. For higher concrete classes the tensile
strength increases less than for lower concrete classes.

There are different test methods used to decide the tensile strength: splitting
test and flexure test. The characteristic values for the tensile strength in
EN 1992 are determined by splitting tests. However, it is hard to determine
the tensile strength by testing and therefore it is often determined by
calculations based on the compression strength [30]. According to EN 1992,
the tensile strength for concrete classes higher than C50/60 can be
determined by

𝑓𝑐𝑘 + 8 (7)
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 = 2.12 𝑙𝑛 (1 + ),
10

and from that the 5%-fractile is determined by

𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑘0.05 = 0.70 ∙ 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 , (8)

and the 95%-fractile by

𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑘0.95 = 1.3 ∙ 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 . (9)

3.1.4 Reinforced concrete

In order to overcome the low tensile strength of concrete, reinforcement is

used. The reinforcement is transferring tensile forces after cracking in the
tensile areas. The type of failure that occurs, if the structure reaches its
ultimate limit state, depends on if the concrete or the reinforcement is
reaching its ultimate limit first [30]. For both compressive failures in the
concrete and tensile failure in the reinforcement, there are two kinds of

16
failure modes that can occur at bending, which gives a total of four failure
modes for reinforced concrete, described by Engström [30] as:

– Compressive failure of the concrete with ductile behavior, which

occurs when the steel is reaching its yield stress before the concrete
reaches its ultimate compressive strain. In this case the pressure zone
is collapsing before the reinforcement breaks.

– Compressive failure of the concrete with brittle behavior, which

occurs when the steel is not reaching its yield stress before the
concrete reach its ultimate compressive strain.

– Tensile failure of the steel with ductile behavior, which occurs when
the steel reaches its yield stress and tears off before the concrete
reaches its ultimate compressive strain.

– Tensile failure of the steel with brittle behavior, which occurs when
the steel tears off as soon as the cross section cracks. This happens
when there is a too small amount of reinforcement.

There are different kinds of reinforcement; untensioned slack reinforcement,

partly prestressed reinforcement and completely prestressed reinforcement.
Prestressed reinforcement, often made of high strength steel, can be pre-
tensioned or post-tensioned. Prestressed reinforcement is adding
compressive forces into the construction, allowing for high loads before
critical tensile stresses arise. Therefore, the use of prestressed reinforcement
is a way to avoid cracks in the serviceability limit state.

When using prestressed reinforcement and when the relation between the
cross section area of the concrete and the steel, according to Equation (1), is
bigger than 3%, the failure is most likely ductile [17]. Using prestressed
reinforcement instead of untensioned slack reinforcement, increases the load
required for cracks considerably [30]. Furthermore, prestressed
reinforcement is having a positive effect on the shear capacity, but almost no
improving effect on the strength in ultimate limit state.

The load-displacement relation for plain concrete, reinforced concrete and

prestressed concrete is shown in Figure 4. For a cross section with plain
concrete, the crack load, 𝑁𝑐𝑟, is equal to the ultimate load, 𝑁𝑢. When cracks
occur in reinforced concrete, the stiffness reduces and deformations
increase. The use of prestressed reinforcement makes it possible to limit the
cracks in serviceability limit state, which improves the mode of action.

17
 a) b) c)
Figure 4: Load-displacement connection for a) plain concrete, b) reinforced concrete and c)
prestressed concrete, according to [30].

3.2 Fracture mechanics of concrete

3.2.1 Fracture energy

The tension stiffening behavior of concrete, after cracks have occurred, can
be described by fracture energy [29]. The fracture energy is a material
property, but because it depends on if the concrete is reinforced and the
amount and type of the reinforcement there is no fixed value to use. Plain
concrete has very low fracture energy, which increases for reinforced
concrete and increases even more for prestressed concrete.

Longitudinal micro cracks developed before the compressive strength, 𝑓𝑐 (in

this thesis also called 𝑓𝑐𝑚 ), is reached are, as mentioned in Section 3.1.4
above, assumed to create an inelastic strain in the stress-strain curve of
concrete. Markeset and Hillerborg [27] presenting a mechanical model for
concrete under compression, called the Compressive Damage Zone (CDZ).
The model is based on the assumption that compressive failure occurs in a
zone of a limited length. This is called localization, which means that the
decreasing branch of the stress-strain curve is dependent on the size of the
specimen. Therefore, the stress-strain curve cannot be treated as a material
property, which is illustrated in Figure 5, where the influence of the
specimen lengths 50 mm, 100 mm and 200 mm on a constant cross section
of 100×100 mm2 is shown.

Figure 5: Influence of the specimen length on the uniaxial stress-strain curve for a constant cross-
section, according to [34].

18
According to Markeset and Hillerborg [27], there are three curves that can
describe the behavior of a concrete specimen under centric pressure. These
are shown in Figure 6 together with the complete stress-strain curve, when
fracture energy is taken into account. The first curve in the figure is showing
the stress-strain curve for concrete that is first loaded up to the compressive
strength, 𝑓𝑐𝑚, and then unloaded. In the second curve the relation between
the stress and the average additional strain, 𝜀𝑑, is showed. This behavior is
occurring within the damage zone and is related to the formation of
longitudinal cracks and the corresponding lateral strain within this zone. The
third curve is showing the stress in relation to the deformation for localized
deformations. These three curves together can be summarized in one curve
showing stress in relation to both strain and deformation.

Figure 6: Three curves showing the behavior of concrete under compression and the resulting curve,
when adding these three curves together, showing both the effect of 𝜀𝑑 ∙ 𝐿𝑑⁄𝐿 as number 1 and 𝑤 ⁄𝐿
as number 2, taken from [27].

As illustrated in Figure 6, the average strain is calculated by

𝐿𝑑 𝑤 (10)
𝜀 𝑚 = 𝜀 + 𝜀𝑑 + ,
𝐿 𝐿

where ε is the value of 𝜀𝑐1 for the actual concrete type, 𝐿𝑑 is the length of
the damage zone, 𝑤 is the deformation and 𝐿 is the total length of the
specimen. In Figure 6, the effect of εd ∙ 𝐿𝑑 ⁄𝐿 is shown by number 1 and the
effect of 𝑤 ⁄𝐿 by number 2.

The opening of a longitudinal crack and a pure tensile crack can be assumed
to absorb the same amount of energy [27]. The fracture energy, absorbed per
unit crack area, is denoted 𝐺𝑓 . It can also be explained as the energy needed
to form a unit area of crack. According to Kazemi et al. [26], the fracture
energy is calculated by

𝑊𝐹 (11)
𝐺𝑓 = ,
𝐴

19
 where 𝐴 is the area of the fracture surface and 𝑊𝐹 is the total work needed to
fracture the concrete. 𝑊𝐹 is also called the fracture strength, which is
calculated by

𝑊𝐹 = 𝑊0 + 𝑃0 ∙ 𝑢 0 , (12)

where 𝑊0 is the area under the load-displacement curve, 𝑢0 is the maximum

measured deflection and 𝑃0 is a point load equivalent to the weight of the
beam. The CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (CEB) [34] also deals with the
fracture energy and define it as

𝑓𝑐𝑚 0.7 (13)

𝐺𝑓 = 𝐺𝑓0 ( ) ,
𝑓𝑐𝑚0

where 𝐺𝑓0 is the base value for the fracture energy as a function of the
aggregate size, given in Table 2, and 𝑓𝑐𝑚0 is a reference value for the
concrete compressive strength, equal to 10 MPa [34].
Table 2: The base value for fracture energy, 𝐺𝑓0 , for maximum
aggregate size 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 , taken from [34].

𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 [mm] 𝐺𝐹0 [Nmm/mm 2]

8 0.025
16 0.030
32 0.038

The fracture energy for different strength classes, calculated by

Equation (13) and with values for 𝐺𝑓0 from Table 2,is reported in Table 3.

Table 3: Fracture energy, 𝐺𝑓 , for different strength classes, taken from [34].

𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐺𝐹 [Nm/m 2]
[mm] C12 C20 C30 C40 C50 C60 C70 C80

8 40 50 65 70 85 95 105 115
16 50 60 75 90 105 115 125 135
32 60 80 95 115 130 145 160 175

When a constant value for the fracture energy is used, the loss of the tensile
strength is linear with the displacement after cracking. Thus, the fracture
energy is equal to the area under the stress-crack opening.

3.2.2 Stress-strain relations for short term compression

The stress-strain relation for compressed concrete is schematically illustrated

in Figure 7, where 𝐸𝑐𝑖 is the tangent modulus; 𝐸𝑐1 the secant modulus from

20
 the origin to the peak compressive stress; 𝑓𝑐𝑚, the strain at maximum stress
𝜀𝑐1 = −0.0022 ; and 𝜀𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚 is the strain at 𝜎𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚 = 0.5𝑓𝑐𝑚.

Figure 7: Stress-strain diagram for uniaxial compression, according to [34].

When the strength of concrete at an age of 28 days, 𝑓𝑐𝑚, is known, the

tangent modulus is estimated by

𝑓𝑐𝑚 1⁄3
𝐸𝑐𝑖 = 𝐸𝑐0 ( ) , (14)
𝑓𝑐𝑚0

where 𝐸𝑐0 = 2.15 ∙ 104 MPa and 𝑓𝑐𝑚0 = 10 MPa. Thus, the secant modulus
of elasticity becomes 𝐸𝑐1 = 𝑓𝑐𝑚 /0.0022 [34].

The strain 𝜀𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚 is calculated from the expression

2 1⁄2
𝜀𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚 1 1 𝐸𝑐𝑖 1 1 𝐸𝑐𝑖 1
= ( + 1) + [ ( + 1) − ] . (15)
𝜀𝑐1 2 2 𝐸𝑐1 4 2 𝐸𝑐1 2

The approximately stress-strain relation is calculated by

𝐸𝑐𝑖 𝜀𝑐 𝜀 2 for |𝜀𝑐 | < |𝜀𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚 | (16)

−( 𝑐 )
𝐸 𝜀 𝜀𝑐1
− 𝑐1 𝑐1 ∙ 𝑓𝑐𝑚
𝐸𝑐𝑖 𝜀
1 + (𝐸 − 2) 𝜀 𝑐
𝜎𝑐 = 𝑐1 𝑐1

−1
1 2 𝜀𝑐 2 4 𝜀𝑐 for |𝜀𝑐 | > |𝜀𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚 | (17)
− [( 𝜉− )( ) +( − 𝜉) ]
{ 𝜀𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚⁄𝜀𝑐1 (𝜀𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚⁄𝜀𝑐1) 𝜀𝑐1
2 𝜀𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚⁄𝜀𝑐1 𝜀𝑐1

where

𝜀 2 𝐸 𝜀 𝐸
4 [( 𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚 ) ( 𝑐𝑖 − 2) + 2 𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚 − 𝑐𝑖 ]
𝜀𝑐1 𝐸𝑐1 𝜀𝑐1 𝐸𝑐1 (18)
𝜉= 2 .
𝜀 𝐸
[ 𝑐.𝑙𝑖𝑚 ( 𝑐𝑖 − 2) + 1]
𝜀𝑐1 𝐸𝑐1

21
 The stress-strain diagram for various concrete clases, calculated by
Equations (16)-(18), is illustrated in Figure 8, which implies that the curve
for concrete classes above C50/60, meaning high strength concrete, should
have a steep slope.

Figure 8: Stress-strain diagram for concrete in compression calculated by Equations (16)-(18),

according to [34].

3.2.3 Stress-strain and stress-crack relations for short term tension

When using the design code CEB, the stress-strain relation is calculated for
uncracked concrete and for cracked concrete subjected to tension. For
uncracked concrete, the behavior when subjected to tension is described by
Figure 9.

Figure 9: Stress-strain diagram for uncracked cross section subjected to uniaxial tension, according
to [34].

For the bilinear stress-strain relation, when 𝜀𝑐𝑡 ≤ 0.00015 , the stress is
calculated by

22
 𝐸𝑐𝑖 𝜀𝑐𝑡 for 𝜎𝑐𝑡 ≤ 0.9𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 (19)
𝜎𝑐𝑡 = { 0.1𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 − (0.00015 − 𝜀𝑐𝑡) for 0.9𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 ≤ 𝜎𝑐𝑡 ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 (20)
0.00015 − 0.9𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚⁄𝐸𝑐𝑖

For a cracked section, the bilinear stress-crack opening relation, illustrated in

Figure 10, may be used.

Figure 10: Stress-crack opening diagram for uniaxial tension, according to [34].

The stress for 𝜀𝑐𝑡 > 0.00015 is calculated by

𝑤
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 (1 − 0.85 ) for 0.15𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 ≤ 𝜎𝑐 ≤ 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 (21)
𝑤1
𝜎𝑐𝑡 =
0.15𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚
(𝑤𝑐 − 𝑤 )
{ 𝑤𝑐 − 𝑤1 for 0 ≤ 𝜎𝑐 ≤ 0.15𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 (22)

where wc is the crack opening, given in mm, for 𝜎𝑐𝑡 = 0, calculated by

𝐺𝑓
𝑤𝑐 = 𝛼𝐹 , (23)
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚

and the crack opening, given in mm, for 𝜎𝑐𝑡 = 0.15𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚 is calculated by

𝐺𝑓
𝑤1 = 2 − 0.15𝑤𝑐 . (24)
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚

The value of the coefficient αF for different maximum aggregate size is given in
Table 4 and the fracture energy, 𝐺𝑓 is described in Section 3.2.1 above.
Table 4: The coefficient 𝛼 𝐹 for maximum aggregate size 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 , taken from [34].

𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 8 16 32
αF 8 7 5

23
3.3 Properties and behavior of steel

The steel response in tensile strain is showed in Figure 11. The behavior is
linear up to the yield stress, 𝑓𝑦𝑘. When the tensile strength, 𝑓𝑡, of the steel is
reached, the corresponding strain is the ultimate strain at maximum load,
𝜀𝑢𝑘. The value of the factor 𝑘 = 𝑓𝑡⁄ 𝑓𝑦𝑘 depends on the steel class and it is
given in Appendix C in EN 1992 [20].

Figure 11: The stress-strain relation of hot rolled reinforcing steel, according to EN 1992 [20].

3.3.1 Prestressed steel

The stress-strain relation for prestressed steel is illustrated in Figure 12,

where the characteristic value of the tensile strength is called 𝑓𝑝𝑘 and 𝑓𝑝0.1𝑘
is the 0.1%-limit, which means the characteristic strength at the strain 0.1%
[20]. The characteristic value for the strain at maximum load is given by 𝜀𝑢𝑘
and 𝐸𝑝 is the design value for the modulus of elasticity.

Figure 12: The stress-strain relation for prestressing steel, according to [20].

24
 The values for the stress-strain relation for the steel used in this study are
reported in Table 5.
Table 5: Stress-strain relation for prestressed steel lines.

Stress 𝜎𝑠 Strain ε𝑠
[MPa] [–]

1265 0.006

1600 0.008

1740 0.012

1860 0.035

3.4 Designing poles and columns

3.4.1 Mode of actions of slender poles and columns

There are two types of columns; braced or non-braced columns. A braced

column has support in both ends, while a non-braced column is only
fastened in the bottom, which gives them different behavior when they are
loaded (shown in Figure 13). While the braced column is bending almost
without any movement of the top, the non-braced column is bending out to
the side. Depending on the type of column, the effective length, 𝑙 0, will be
different.

a) b)
Figure 13: Different types of columns, a) is showing the behavior of non-braced column and b) the
behavior of a braced column [20].

From now, this chapter will handle non-braced columns, because poles
carrying the lines on the grid are, like non-braced columns, only fastened at
the bottom.

25
3.4.2 Elementary cases for beams with a fixed attachment

The test set up for a bending test according to the European standard for
masts and poles, EN 12843, [20], described in Section 3.4.4 below, can be
compared with the elementary case for a beam with a fixed attachment,
illustrated in Figure 14a). The bending moment at the support, 𝑀𝐴 , is
calculated by

𝑀𝐴 = 𝑃𝐿, (25)

where 𝑃 is a point load and 𝐿 is the total length from the ground to the point
where the force is applied. For a beam with a constant geometric section the
second moment of inertia is depending on the outer and inner diameter, 𝑑1
and 𝑑2, illustrated in Figure 14b).

a) b)
Figure 14: a) Elementary case for beams with a fixed attachment and b) geometric section for a cylindrical
beam to use when calculating the moment of inertia, both according to [36].

The second moment of inertia for a cylindrical beam is calculated by

𝜋 4
𝐼𝑦 = 𝐼𝑧 = (𝑑 − 𝑑 24 ). (26)
64 1

When the bending moment and the moment of inertia are known, the
compression stresses in the concrete on distance 𝑧 from the center of the
beam can be calculated by

𝑀
𝜎𝑐 = 𝑧. (27)
𝐼

3.4.3 Prevented transverse expansion

When a pressure is applied from the side of a, for example, pole or column it
counteracts the axial pressure, which increases the rigidity and the
compressive strength of the concrete because of the prevented transverse
expansion, see Figure 15, where 𝜎2 and 𝜎3 are the compressive stresses in
the cross section [20]. The increased value on the compressive strength,
𝑓𝑐𝑘.𝑐 , is calculated by

26
 𝜎2
𝑓𝑐𝑘 (1.000 + 5.0 ) for 𝜎2 ≤ 0.05𝑓𝑐𝑘 (28)
𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝑓𝑐𝑘.𝑐 = 𝜎2
𝑓𝑐𝑘 (1.125 + 2.5 ) for 𝜎2 > 0.05𝑓𝑐𝑘 (29)
{ 𝑓𝑐𝑘

where the compressive stress 𝜎2 = 𝜎3 .

Figure 15: Stress-strain relation for concrete when the transverse expansion is prevented, where A is
without prevented expansion, according to [20].

3.4.4 Design loads for poles to the power line grid

Loads to consider are permanent loads, wind loads, ice loads, assembly
loads, maintenance loads and security loads. The basic equation for design
loads is

𝐸𝑑 = ∑𝛾𝐺 ∙ 𝐺𝐾 + 𝜓 ∙ ∑ 𝛾𝑄 ∙ 𝑄𝑛𝐾 , (30)

where the reduction factor 𝜓 is equal to 1.0, 𝛾𝐺 is a partial factor for

permanent actions and 𝛾𝑄 a partial factor for variable loads [15]. 𝐺𝐾 is the
characteristic value for permanent loads and 𝑄𝑛𝐾 the characteristic value for
all variable actions, such as wind and ice loads. Partial factors for supports
for the Swedish grid, which in this study means for the poles, are reported in
Table 6.
Table 6: Partial factors for design loads, taken from [15].

Action Symbol Load combination

1 2 3

Permanent actions 𝛾𝐺 1.1 0.94 1.0

Permanent actions from soil and 𝛾𝐺 1.1 1.1 1.0
ground water
Variable actions 𝛾𝑄 1.43 1.43 1.0

Dynamic construction and 𝛾𝐺 1.8 1.8 1.3

maintenance loads

27
 Load combination number 1 is determinant for poles and load combination
number 2 for foundations [13]. Load combination number 3 should be used
when checking deformations and cracks in the concrete in the serviceability
limit state.

3.4.5 Bending test on poles

Requirements for the performance of bending tests on poles are given in the
European standard for masts and poles, EN 12843, [20]. Tests carried out
according to the standard should be done on poles placed horizontal,
fastened in one end and resting on supports preventing the pole from
bending due to its own weight. A principle picture of the bending test
according to the standard is shown in Figure 16a, where 𝐹𝑛 is the force
applied and 𝑓𝑛 is the corresponding deflection.

The test set up when RISE conducted bending tests on poles made of wood
an, mentioned in Section 1.1, is illustrated in Figure 16b. The total height of
the pole tested was 12 m and the distance from the top to the place where the
load was applied, ℎ 𝑎, was 0.16 m.

a) b)
Figure 16: Test set up for bending test a) according to the standard for masts and poles [20] and b)
according to RISE [36].

The mean failure load of five creosote impregnated wood poles tested was
9.2 kN, which gives a bending moment capacity at the support of
90.53 kNm. Maximum displacement of the top measured was 3.1 m and the
mean value of the displacement from the test was 2.6 m.

3.5 The Finite Element Method

The finite element method is a numerical approximation method, where a

structure is divided into a finite number of parts, called finite elements.
These elements create a finite element mesh [37]. The behavior of each
element can be determined by applying different material properties and

28
 boundary conditions. By defining the behavior for all elements and then
assembling them to one body, an approximate solution for the whole
structure can be obtained.

3.5.1 The modelling software BRIGADE/Plus

BRIGADE/Plus is a tool box for modelling and analysis of structures [38].

The software includes predefined loads and load combinations in accordance
with Eurocode. The results from analyses made in the program can be
visualized in 3D plots and 2D graphs. BRIGADE/Plus includes a prestress-
module, which is of great benefit for this study. When using the prestress-
module in BRIGADE/Plus, short term losses, due to friction and anchorage,
are calculated by atomization.

3.5.2 Fracture mechanics in BRIGADE/Plus

The concrete behavior is represented in BRIGADE/Plus by using the

concrete damage plasticity model, which includes concrete plasticity,
compressive behavior, described by the stress-strain relation, and tensile
behavior, described by the stress-crack-opening behavior. The concrete
damage plasticity model assumes that the failure mechanisms are tensile
cracking or compressive crushing of the concrete [39].

3.5.2.1 Defining compressive behavior

As described in Section 3.2.2, the compressive behavior is described by a

stress-strain relation. The definition of the compressive inelastic strain, or
crushing strain, 𝜀̃ 𝑐𝑖𝑛, according to the Abaqus manual is illustrated in Figure
17 [38]. In this definition, hardening data are given in terms of the inelastic
𝑝𝑙
strain instead of the plastic strain, 𝜀̃𝑐 .

Figure 17: Definition of the compressive inelastic strain 𝜀̃𝑐𝑖𝑛, according to [38].

In the definition above, the compressive inelastic strain is calculated by

29
 𝜀̃𝑐𝑖𝑛 = 𝜀𝑐 − 𝜀0𝑐
𝑒𝑙
, (31)

𝑒𝑙
where 𝜀0𝑐 = 𝜎𝑐 ⁄𝐸0, as illustrated in Figure 17. When unloading, the
behavior is described by compressive damage curves, 𝑑𝑐 − 𝜀̃𝑐𝑖𝑛, where 𝑑𝑐 is
a variable between 0 and 1, defining the size of the decreasing stiffness [40].
The inelastic strain is automatically converted to plastic strain by the
expression

𝑑𝑐 𝜎𝑐
𝜀̃̃𝑐𝑝𝑙 = 𝜀̃𝑐𝑖𝑛 − .
(1 − 𝑑𝑐 ) 𝐸0 (32)

3.5.2.2 Defining tension stiffening

The tension stiffening behavior can be specified by using a stress-strain

relation or by applying a fracture energy cracking criterion [38]. In this
study, the later alternative is used. The energy cracking criterion is based on
Hillerborg’s fracture energy proposal, mentioned in Section 2.3 and 3.2.
With this approach the fracture energy, 𝐺𝑓, is assumed to be a material
parameter and the brittle behavior of the concrete is characterized by a
stress-crack opening relation. In BRIGDE/Plus, this fracture energy cracking
model can be used by specifying the post failure stress as a tabular function
of the cracking displacement, which is illustrated in Figure 18a, or by
specifying the fracture energy, 𝐺𝑓, as a material property, where the fracture
energy is the area under the linear strength loss between 𝜎𝑡0 and the
displacement when the stress is zero, 𝑢0 = 2𝐺𝑓 ⁄𝜎𝑡0, illustrated in Figure
18b.

a) b)
Figure 18: The fracture energy cracking model described in a) by a tabular function of the cracking
displacement and in b) by using the fracture energy as a material property, according to [38].

3.5.2.3 Concrete plasticity

Concrete plasticity is described by the dilation angle, 𝜓; the eccentricity; the

relation between the initial equibiaxial compressive yield stress, 𝑓𝑏0, and the
initial uniaxial compressive yield stress, 𝑓𝑐0; the yield surface in the
deviatory plane, 𝐾; and the viscous parameter.

30
 The dilation angle, 𝜓, describes the relation between hydrostatic pressure
and the concrete strength and should be in the interval 32° ≤ 𝜓 ≤ 38° [40].
Default values for the rest of the terms, according to the ABAQUS manual
[38], are reported in Table 7.
Table 7: Default values, describing concrete plasticity, taken from [38].

Eccentricity 𝑓𝑏0 ⁄ 𝑓𝑐0 𝐾 Viscosity

parameter

0.1 1.16 0.67 0

3.5.1.3 Prestressed reinforcement in BRIGADE/Plus

In BRIGADE/Plus, there is also a prestress-module. Instead of creating

tendons in the part-module, the prestressed reinforcement is created directly
in this module, where material, cross section area and location are assigned.

There are two different functions to use in BRIGADE/Plus, adding

prestressed tendons and defining the prestress forces in the tendons [37]. The
force in each tendon is calculated by

𝐹𝑥 = 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑖 ∙ 𝑒 − (𝜇𝛼+𝑘𝑥) , (33)

where 𝐹𝑥 is the initial stress prior to anchoring at the distance 𝑥 from the
cable end; 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑖 the initial stress prior to anchoring at the cable end; 𝜇 the
friction coefficient; 𝛼 the initially intended, cumulative angle change from
the positions where the tendon force is applied, given in radians; 𝑥 the
distance from the position where the force is applied; and 𝑘 the wobble
friction loss, given per meter, due to unintended deviation of the duct [37].
The maximum cable stress after anchor set, 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 , and the initial stress prior
to anchoring, 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑖 , are defined by the user, while the maximum distance
𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐹𝑥 and the force after anchor set is calculated by the software
BRIGADE/Plus. The relation between the force and the maximum distance,
𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥 , after anchor set, 𝐹𝑥 and 𝑥 𝑚𝑎𝑥 are illustrated in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Stress after anchor set, according to [37]. 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑖is the initial stress prior to anchoring and 𝐹𝑥
is the initial stress prior to anchoring at the distance 𝑥 from the cable end.

31
32
4. Methods and implementation
In this chapter, the methods used in this project are described, as well as the
aim and purpose of their choice and how they are implemented. In this
project, quantitative methods are used. Empirical data is collected from a
test field and numerical methods are used to make analyses of models
created in the software BRIGADE/Plus.

4.1 Field test

A field test, when a concrete pole was drawn to failure, was conducted. The
aim with this test was to apply different loads and observe deflection of the
pole and the failure when the ultimate limit state was reached. The purpose
with the test was to capture the behavior, to get a perception about how the
pole deflects and the maximum bending strength. The result was then used
for calibrating the FE-model, created in BRIGADE/Plus.

4.1.1 Test model

Measurements of the pole tested and its prestressed reinforcement are

reported in Table 8. Some of the values are approximated, because exact
measurements were not possible to perform at the testing site and. Other
values are picked from drawings and calculations of the actual pole.
Table 8: Material properties and geometries of the tested pole.

Property Measurement [mm]

Height above ground (approximately) 19 000

Support length under ground (approximately) 2000
Diameter at the top 444
Diameter at the bottom 822
T hickness concrete (top/bottom) 100/110.5
Diameter of steel lines 11.3

Properties for the concrete class and steel type used in this study are
presented in Section 3.1 and 3.3 respectively.

4.1.2 Test set up

A wire was fastened around the pole, 3 m down from the top, as shown in
the simplified sketch in Figure 20. Pole diameter, ∅, and pole thickness, 𝑡,
are marked in the figure. At one side of the wire a dial indicator, measuring
half of the applied force, 𝐹, was attached.

33
 a) b)
Figure 20: In a) the whole pole is shown, with the load 𝐹 attached 3 m from the top and in b) the test
set up is seen from above with the placement for the dial indicator, measuring the force, market.

Figure 21: Test set up in the field, with a wire fastened in the top.

The test set up out in the field is shown in Figure 21, with the wire fastened.
The wire was also attached to a tow truck with measurement equipment,
showing the applied force. A camera was placed out on the road to be able to
capture the procedure and the failure.

34
 The procedure of the test was to pull the wire in by the tow truck and
measure the force needed to do that. The test was conducted in two parts.
The first part was to increase the load slowly to be able to observe the
loading and the corresponding displacement. After reaching the total load of
around 100 kN, the behavior of the pole was observed when it was
unloaded. The second part of the test was to increase the load until failure.

4.2 Analysis in BRIGADE/Plus

A model of the concrete pole, drawn to failure in the field test, is created in
the software BRIGADE/Plus 6.1. Known material properties and dimensions
are used and the behavior of the pole is captured by adding loads and
boundary conditions. This model is the basic template when poles with
different geometries are evaluated. Crack initiation and its effect on the pole
are also evaluated according to the sections below.

In the sections below, different modules used in BRIGADE/Plus are

described, as well as how they are used when creating and examining the
models.

4.2.1 Geometrical modeling in the part-module

A total number of 6 models were created in BRIGADE/Plus. Their geometry

is reported in Table 9. The height, ℎ, of the poles is counted from the bottom
to the top. When the pole is in use, about two meters of the pole are under
ground, embedded in a foundation. The top diameter, ∅𝑡𝑜𝑝 , and the bottom
diameter, ∅𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚, given in the table are the outer diameters. The thickness,
𝑡, illustrated together with the diameter in Figure 20, is indicating the
concrete wall thickness at top/bottom.
Table 9: Geometries of models created and analysed in BRIGADE/Plus.

Model no. Height, ℎ ∅𝑡𝑜𝑝 ∅𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 T hickness, 𝑡 Weight

[m] [mm] [mm] [mm] [tonne]

1 21 444 822 100/110.5 9.24

2 21 444 822 80/90 7.20
3 21 444 822 60/70 5.85
4 21 424 802 50/50 4.46
5 21 292 670 50/50 3.44
6 12 454 670 50/50 2.32

35
4.2.2 Material model for concrete

The material model for concrete, created in the property-module, was based
on the concrete strength 105 MPa for 100 mm cubes. Material parameters for
this quality are found in Section 3.1. Both elastic and concrete damage plasticity
models were created. The latter alternative is able to describe the behavior of
prestressed concrete in the cracked state. Young’s modulus of elasticity,
𝐸𝑐𝑚 , and the mean value for the tensile strength, 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚, are calculated by
Equations (3) and (4).

The elastic material model included density, 𝜌,Young’s modulus, 𝐸𝑐𝑚, and
Poisson’s ratio, 𝜈. These values are presented in Table 10.
Table 10: Properties for the elastic material model.

Material name 𝜌 [kg/m 3] 𝐸𝑐𝑚 [GPa] 𝜈 [-]

Concrete 2400 39.70 0.2

The concrete damage plasticity model includes plasticity under compression

load, described by the stress-strain relation, and stress-crack-opening
behavior for tension loading.

Plasticity for the concrete is described by the dilation angle, eccentricity,

𝑓𝑏0⁄𝑓𝑐0, the yield surface in the deviatory plane, 𝐾, and the viscous
parameter, reported in Table 11.
Table 11: Data used to describe plasticity in BRIGADE/Plus.

Dilation Eccentricity 𝑓𝑏0 ⁄𝑓𝑐0 𝐾 Viscosity

Angle, 𝜓 parameter

36.31 0.1 1.16 0.67 0

The stress-strain relation, describing the compressive behavior, was

calculated according to Section 3.2.2. Values used are reported in Table 12
and the stress-strain relation is illustrated in Figure 22.

36
 Table 12: Stress-strain relation for compressed concrete.

Stress, 𝜎𝑐 [MPa] Strain, 𝜀𝑐 [‰]

0.00 0.000
22.90 0.0005
36.30 0.0010
51.50 0.0015
63.60 0.0020
70.75 0.0025
71.60 0.0027
69.60 0.0030
53.10 0.0035
38.80 0.0037
34.30 0.00375
14.20 0.00425
8.28 0.00475
5.56 0.00525
4.04 0.00575
3.08 0.00625
2.44 0.00675
1.98 0.00725
1.65 0.00775

Figure 22: Stress-strain relation for compressed concrete.

The tensile behavior was described by the stress-crack opening relation and
calculated according to Section 3.2.3. The relation between the stress and the
width of the crack opening was adjusted to capture the behavior of the pole
tested in the field. Values for the stress-crack opening relation are reported
in Table 13 and illustrated in Figure 23.

37
 Table 13: Stress-crack opening behavior for concrete in tension.

Stress, 𝜎𝑡 [MPa] Crack widht, 𝑤 [mm]

4.450 0.0
0.675 0.3
0.450 0.5
0.000 3.0

Figure 23: Stress-crack opening relation for concrete in tension in the cracked state.

4.2.3 Material model for steel

The material model for steel is based on the high-strength steel quality
Y1860S3-6.8. Material parameters for this quality are found in Section 3.3.

The elastic material model included density, 𝜌,Young’s modulus, 𝐸𝑐𝑚, and
Poisson’s ratio, 𝜈. Values for these properties are presented in Table 14.
Table 14: Properties for elastic material models.

Material name 𝜌 [kg/m 3] 𝐸𝑐𝑚 [GPa] 𝜈 [-]

Steel 7800 200.00 0.3

The plastic material model for steel is based on the stress-strain relation,
described in Section 3.3.1. The plastic strain is equal to zero when the steel
is reaching the yield stress. Using the relation given for the steel, with the
strain for the yield stress equal to zero, results in the plastic stress-strain
relation presented in Table 15 and illustrated in Figure 24.

38
 Table 15: Stress-plastic strain relation for the steel.

Stress 𝜎𝑠 [MPa] Plastic strain ε𝑠 [–]

1265 0.000
1600 0.002
1740 0.006
1860 0.029

Figure 24: Stress-plastic strain relation for the steel.

4.2.4 Element types and sizes

The elements used for the concrete pole were 3D tetrahedral elements. The
global element size varied between 0.065-0.045 m for the different models,
depending on the concrete thickness. For the tendons, the element size was
chosen in the prestress-module, where it was set to 0.01 m.

4.2.5 Load steps

Three load steps were created: Gravity, Prestress and Pressure. All features
chosen for these steps are reported in Table 16, where 𝑇𝑠 is the time period
for the step; 𝐼 is the increment size; 𝐼𝑚𝑖𝑛 is the minimum increment size; and
𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum increment size. For all three steps default values for
dissipated energy fraction and adaptive stabilization are used. For both the
Gravity-step and the Prestress-step, the matrix storage under the tab “Other”
in the step editor is unchanged, which means that solver default is used. In
the Pressure-step, the matrix storage is chosen to be unsymmetrical.

39
 Table 16: Features for the three different steps

Step name Basic Incrementation

𝑇𝑠 Nlgeom 𝐼 𝐼𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥

Gravity 1 Off 1 1e-5 1

Prestress 1 Off 0.2 1e-5 1
Pressure 250 On 0.025 1e-9 250

4.2.6 Loads and boundary conditions

Two different loads were applied, acting on the pole: gravity and pressure.
Gravity was applied on the whole model downwards in the length direction.
Pressure was applied on an area, illustrated in Figure 25b. For Models 1 to 5,
that area had a height, ℎ, of 0.25 m and the length of the half circumference,
placed on a distance, 𝑑, 3 m down from the top. For Model 6, the height, ℎ,
was changed to 0.04 m and distance, 𝑑, to 0.16 m. Displacements presented
in the results are measured at two different points. The point 𝐷1 is placed in
the area where the pressure is applied and 𝐷2 is the top of the pole. Both
points are market in Figure 25b.

a) b) c)
Figure 25: a) The whole pole, where b) showing the area where the pressure is applied and c) the
boundary condition simulating support conditions. In b) the points 𝐷 1 and 𝐷 2, where displacement are
measured, are pointed out.

Boundary conditions, illustrated in Figure 25c, were applied, simulating the

support conditions. Displacements in X-, Y- and Z-direction were set equal
to zero for the 2 m long section on the lower part of the pole.

40
4.2.7 Prestressed tendons and prestressing force

The amount and size of the reinforcement were the same as in the pole tested
in the field, which means 40 prestressed lines with a diameter of 11.28 mm.
The tendons were created, with the concrete pole as a solid host, in the
prestress manager. They were evenly distributed over the cross section, all
with the same distance to the outside of the concrete. Their placement was
defined by using coordinates.

The number of lines, 𝑁𝑠 , the cross-section area of one tendon, 𝐴 𝑠, the total
cross section area of all tendons, 𝐴 𝑠.𝑡𝑜𝑡 , and the distance from the center of a
tendon to the outside of the concrete, 𝑎, are reported in Table 17. In the
Prestress Load manager the force applied in the tendons, 𝐹𝑠 , were defined
together with the friction coefficient, 𝜇, the friction loss, ∆𝜇, and the element
size for the tendons, 𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛. The force was applied in both ends of the tendons.
Table 17: Properties used in the prestress-module.

Model 𝑁𝑆 𝐴𝑠 𝐴𝑠.𝑡𝑜𝑡 𝑎 𝜇 ∆𝜇 𝐹𝑠 𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛

no [pcs] [mm 2] [mm 2] [mm] [-] [-] [kN] [m]

Model 1-4 40 100 4000 36 0.20 0.30 108 0.01

Model 5 40 100 4000 25 0.20 0.30 54 0.01
Model 6 40 100 4000 25 0.20 0.03 2.5 0.01

The size of the prestressing force applied for Model 1 was chosen from
descriptions of the pole tested on the field. Because Models 5 and 6 were
crushed lengthwise when using the same prestressing force, the tendon
forces were lower for these models.

4.3 Analysis of the results

4.3.1 Analysis of the results from the field test

From the outcome of the field test, the bending shape of the pole and the
deflection for different loads was analyzed by studying the film that
captured the test.

The bending moment capacity at the support and the compressive elastic
stress was calculated according to elementary cases for beams, described in
Section 3.4.2. The results of these calculations are compared with results of
the FE-models.

When performing the field test the force needed to draw the pole to failure
was measured in tonnes. Therefore, results are sometimes given in both kN
and tonnes.

41
4.3.2 Analysis of the results in BRIGADE/Plus

In BRIGADE/Pluss the results were analyzed in the visualization module.

Load-displacement curves were created by using the load together with the
time-displacement relation for the point 𝐷1 , pointed out in Figure 25 in
Section 4.2.6.

The displacement, used as a comparison with the field test, was the
displacement along a path on the back on the pole. Loads of interest were
the loads measured in the field, which means 58.90 kN, 68.74 kN and
102.62 kN.

Stresses and strains were analyzed using probe values in the visualization
module. Values reported in the result are the highest values found for the
integration points and for the centroid value, which is a mean value for all
integration points in one element. Relations between stresses and strains or
load and displacement are plotted by using ODB History Output.

When the behavior of the FE-model was consistent with the behavior
observed at the test site, stresses and strains for the failure load measured at
the field was analyzed in the FE-model. Compressive stresses in the concrete
obtained for that load were defined as the maximum admissible compressive
strength and used to define the failure load for the optimized FE-models.
The maximum tensile strength in the concrete was defined as the maximum
value used in the material model.

42
5. Results

5.1 Field test

The outcome of the field test was in the form of measurements of the force
and observations of displacements, also captured on film. The test was two-
part procedure, were the first part was to observe displacements while
increasing the load, followed by unloading, and the second part was to
increase the load until failure. Load and displacement at the location where
the load was applied, 𝐷1 , and displacement at the top, 𝐷2, are reported in
Table 18. At the test site the load was measured in tonnes and in the table
below it is reported in both tonnes and kN.
Table 18: Force and displacement and failure load from the field test.

Load [tonne] Load [kN] 𝐷 1 [mm] 𝐷 2 [mm]

6.00 58.9 415 570

7.00 68.74 720 960
10.45 102.62 1460 1950

The failure load was 103 kN (10.5 tonnes), which corresponds to a bending
moment capacity at the support of 1650 kNm. The type of failure observed
was a compression failure in the concrete. The results are reported in Table
19, together with the elastic compression stress, calculated for the failure
load by using elementary cases.

The required capacity according to the calculations for the pole is 917 kNm
in serviceability limit state, which is compared with the crack moment
capacity, and 1406 kNm in ultimate limit state. The calculated crack
moment capacity for the pole is 912 kNm and the bending moment capacity
1602 kNm. All results are reported in Table 19 together with corresponding
elastic compression stresses in the concrete.
Table 19: Maximum bending moment, crack moment and compression stresses in concrete from the
field test, calculations and requirements on the pole.

Moment/Stresses Field test Calculations Requirements

Crack moment [kNm] – 912 917
Bending moment [kNm] 1650 1602 1406
Compression stresses [MPa] 48.4 46.9 41.2

5.2 Base Model 1

Model 1 is used as reference and template to which the other models are
compared. Therefore, the results for Model 1 will be presented thoroughly in

43
 a separate section, where it is also compared with the field test model. The
rest of the models will be presented more general in following section.

Results of interest from Model 1 are the failure load, the type of failure
(compression or tension), crack load, displacement, stresses and strains.

5.2.1 Maximum load, failure load and crack load

The maximum load is the load reached when the FE-model failed in
BRIGADE/Plus because no more solutions where found. The failure load
for the model is the load reached when stresses between 95-100 MPa on
compression side are achieved. If the tensile stress of 4.45 MPa on the
tension side is reached, the failure load depends on whether the ultimate
compression strength in the concrete or the ultimate tensile strength in the
tendons is reached first.

The load- displacement relation, illustrated in Figure 26, shows the behavior
of the pole when the load increases. Displacements are measured in the point
𝐷1 , according to Figure 25 in Section 4.2.6.

Figure 26: Load-displacement curve for Model 1, with crack load, failure load and maximum load
pointed out.

The crack-load is determined to 30.1 kN, which is the load achieved when
the curve is changing direction the first time. Maximum load, when the FE-
model fails, is 112 kN while failure load, when stresses of magnitude 95-
100 MPa are reached, is 102 kN.

Maximum load, failure load and the load when the first crack occurred in the
FE-model are reported in Table 20, together with the corresponding moment
capacity at the support. Failure load and the corresponding bending moment
from the field test are also reported in the table, but the crack load and
corresponding moment are not known from the test. The capacity calculated

44
 for the pole that was tested in the field is reported, both as bending moment
capacity, crack moment capacity and the corresponding load applied 3 m
down from the top.
Table 20: Failure load, crack load and moments for Model 1 and the field model.

Model Maximum load Failure load Bending moment Crack load Crack moment
[kN] [kN] capacity [kNm] [kN] capacity [kNm]

Model 1 (FE) 112 102 1630 30.1 482

Field test – 103 1650 – –
Field
– 100 1602 57.0 912
calculations

The failure load for the FE-model model agrees with the field test with a
factor 0.99.

5.2.2 Displacement

Displacements are compared to displacements observed at the test site for

three different loads. The loads and the corresponding displacement from
the field and for Model 1 are reported in Table 21 and illustrated in Figure
27. In the table, displacements are given for positions 𝐷1 and 𝐷2 and in the
figure along the entire length of the pole.
Table 21: Load and deflection result from the field test and for Model 1.

Field Model 1

Load Load 𝐷1 𝐷2 𝐷1 𝐷2
[tonne] [kN] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]

6.00 58.90 550 800 592 765

7.00 68.74 690 980 782 1015
10.45 102.62 1460 1950 1540 2000

45
Figure 27: Displacement for the loads 60, 70 and 102 kN for the field test (red line) the FE-model
(blue line).

The load-displacement relations from the field test and for Model 1 are
illustrated in Figure 28. The load and displacement are both measured in
point 𝐷1 , where the pressure is applied. There was no information about the
displacements for loads less than 40 kN from the field test. Therefore, results
from the field test and the FE-model are not comparable before that load is
reached. Loads marked for the field test are the loads measured. For
Model 1, loads are marked when the curve is changing direction.

Figure 28: Load-displacement relation from the field test (red line) and for Model 1 (blue line).

46
5.2.3 Stresses and strains in the concrete

The highest values of compressive stress in the concrete are obtained along
the edge of the support. High values of tensile stresses in the concrete are
found along the edge of the support, but also on the sides of the pole and
higher up, under the area where the pressure is applied. Maximum values of
the strain are found along the edge of the support on the tension side.

Stresses and strains at the support, for the failure load 102 kN, are reported
in Table 22 for the compression and the tension side. Stresses reported are
the axial stresses, S33, acting in vertical direction, and the principal stress.
Values reported for plastic strain are PE33, acting in vertical direction, and
the principal plastic strain. Two different values of the result are reported.
Firstly, obtained by using the centroid position, and secondly by looking at
the highest value of the interpolation points. When using the centroid
position, a mean value of all the integration points in the element is
obtained.
Table 22: Maximum axial stress, S33, principal stress, plastic strain and principal strain in the area
around the support.

Stress or strain Compression side T ension side

Centroid Integration pt. Centroid Integration pt.
S33 [MPa] -99.5 -123.7 4.2 4.3
Principal stress [MPa] -96.0 -138.3 4.3 4.4
PE33 [–] -0.0017 -0.0021 0.012 0.015
Principal strain [–] -0.0019 -0.0023 0.014 0.016

The axial stresses and the plastic strains along the whole pole are shown in
Figure 29. The highest values of stresses on the compression side are found
at the edge of the support. On the tension side, the highest values of the axial
stresses are found on the sides down at the support, as shown in Figure 30,
and further up, under the area where the pressure is applied. The highest
values of strains are found along the support on both the compression and
the tension side, but in both cases high values are also found further up on
the pole. Maximum stresses at the support, reported in Table 22, are
illustrated in Figure 30 and the highest values of plastic strain in Figure 31.

47
 a) Stress, S33, compression side.

b) Stress, S33, tension side.

c) Plastic strain, PE33, compression side. .

d) Plastic strain, PE33, tension side. .

Figure 29: The axial stress, S33, is shown in a) on the compression side and in b) on the tension side.
Plastic strain, PE33, is shown in c) on the compression side and d) on the tension side. The areas
where the highest values are found are marked out.

48
 a) Stress, S33, compression side. b) Min. principal stress, compression side.

e) Stress, S33, tension side. f) Max principal stress, tension side.

Figure 30: Maximum stresses, for the load 102 kN, along the edge to the support.

a) Plastic strain, PE33, compression side. b) Min. principal strain, compression side.

c) Plastic strain, PE33, tension side. d) Max. principal strain, tension side.
Figure 31: Plastic strain, PE, and principal strain, for the load 102 kN, around the support.

The elastic compressive stress, for the pole tested in the field, was estimated
by using elementary cases. The elastic compressive stress in the concrete
pole was 48.4 MPa, as reported in Section 5.1. When analyzing the
compressive stress of the model, when different loads are applied, the

49
 maximum value of the elastic compressive stress is 46.70 MPa, which is
read out from the stress-load relation illustrated in Figure 32.

Figure 32: Compressive stress for different loads applied on the model, added to the prestressing. The
maximum value of the elastic stress, pointed out, is 46.70 MPa.

5.2.4 Stresses and strains in the reinforcement

Stresses and strains in the tendons are of interest on the tension side. The
maximum values of stresses and strains are obtained at the upper edge of the
support. Maximum values for principal stress and plastic strain, for the
failure load 102 kN, are reported in Table 23 and illustrated in Figure 33.
The values reported for stress and strain in Table 23 are the highest values
observed. They are read out by using integration point and centroid, which
in this case are the same.
Table 23: Max. principal stress and max principal palstic strain obtaned
in the tendons for the failure load 102 kN.
Max. principal stresss Max principal plastic strain
[MPa] [–]

1620 0.0026

50
 a) Max principal stress, on tension side. b) Max principal plastic strain, on tension side.
Figure 33: Max principal stress and plastic strain in the tendons are found at the edge of the support.

The stress-plastic strain relation in the tendons, for the maximum load of
112 kN, is illustrated in Figure 34, together with the theoretical stress-plastic
strain relation used in the material model for steel.

Figure 34: The stress-plastic strain relation used in the material model and the result for the FE-
model at the maximum load 112 kN.

The maximum strength for steel used in the material model is 1860 MPa,
together with the maximum value of the plastic strain, which is 0.029. The
highest value for stress, obtained in the model, is 1749 MPa together with
the maximum plastic strain 0.0077.

51
5.3 Optimized FE-models

In this section, the results for Models 2-6, the five models optimized to
decrease pole weight, are reported. The geometry for these models is
changed in accordance with Table 9 in Section 4.2.1.

5.3.1 Failure load and displacement for Models 2-6

The results for Models 2-6 are reported in Table 24. 𝐷1 and 𝐷2 are, as
before, displacements on the height 18 and 21 m, except for Model 6 where
they are the displacements at a height of 11.8 m, where the load is applied,
and at 12 m.
Table 24: Results for Models 2-6.

Model Failure Bending Crack Crack Displacement Displacement

no load moment load moment 𝐷1 𝐷2
[kN] [kNm] [kN] [kNm] [mm] [mm]

2 93.9 1502 30.6 490 1430 1860

3 80.8 1295 23.2 371 1272 1648
4 51.7 827 19.4 310 755 996
5 44.9 718 9.6 154 1402 1831
6 52.8 520 9.6 94 0.52 0.53

In Figure 35, the load-displacement relations for Models 2-6 are illustrated
together with Model 1. Both loads and displacements are measured at point
𝐷1 , where the pressure is applied.

Figure 35: Load-displacement relation for FE-models 1-6, measured in point 𝐷 1.

52
 The displacement decreased for Models 2-4 but increased for Model 5,
which is of a more slender shape. The behavior of Model 6, which is shorter,
differs from all the other models.

5.3.2 Stresses and strains in Models 2-6

Maximum stresses and strains in Models 2-6 are compared with Model 1 in
two aspects. Firstly, the failure load is determined for the stresses of the
same size as for the failure of Model 1. This means compression stresses of
sizes between 95-100 MPa or tension stresses around 4.45 MPa, when
looking at the centroid probe value. Secondly, the location for maximum
stresses and strains are examined to analyze differences when the geometry
of the pole changes. Maximum centroid values for the failure load, defined
for each model, are reported in Table 25.
Table 25: Axial stress, S33, principal stress and plastic strain, PE, in Models 2-6.

Model. Compression side T ension side

no
S33 Prin. stress PE33 S33 Prin. stress
PE33 [-]
[MPa] [MPa] [-] [MPa] [MPa]

2 -97.8 -102.5 -0.0017 4.31 4.32 0.013

3 -97.3 -95.8 -0.0016 4.23 4.29 0.0053
4 -87.8 -87.7 -0.0013 4.41 4.42 0.0025
5 -98.7 -103.5 -0.0020 4.69 3.90 0.0095
6 -91.2 -95.0 -0.0019 4.40 4.31 0.0212

Stresses and strains in Model 2 are acting in the same way as in Model 1. In
Model 3, strains on the tension side are lower at failure, just reaching values
of 0.0053, to be compared with values around 0.015 for Model 1. The strain
distribution over the tension side of the pole is also different, as illustrated in
Figure 36.

The same behavior, with lower values of the strain, is valid for Model 4, but
in this case compression stresses did not reach 95 MPa before failure of the
FE-model. For Model 4, stresses around 90 MPa were reached when the
model failed.

53
 Figure 36: Plastic strain, PE33, over the pole for Model 4.

Stresses and strains on the compression and the tension side for Model 4 are
reported in Table 26. The highest values of tension stress were found on the
side of the pole. The highest values of the plastic strain on the tension side
where found on the middle of the pole height, but the highest values for the
principal strain where found at the support.
Table 26: Stresses and strains obtained from Model 4.

Stress or strain Compression side T ension side

Centroid Integration pt. Centroid Integration pt.

S33 [MPa] -87.8 -116.9 4.40 4.45

Principal stress [MPa] -87.7 -115.4 4.41 4.47
PE33 [–] -0.0013 -0.0018 0.0025 0.0026
Principal strain [–] -0.0015 -0.0019 0.0022 0.0031

For Model 5, the behavior is, again, more like the behavior of Model 1.
Stresses, strains and displacement are almost the same for the failure load,
but the failure load itself is much lower.

For Model 6, the behavior reminded about Model 4, thus the compressive
stresses did not reach values higher than 95 MPa, when looking at centroid
values, before failure of the model occurred. Tensile stresses on the other
hand were higher, which makes it difficult to determine if there is a
compressive or tensile failure of the pole.

54
6. Analysis

6.1 Field test

The outcome of the calculations for the pole is quite consistent with the field
test. The force needed to draw the pole to failure was only about 3% higher
than the maximum capacity according to the calculations. However,
comparing the result with the requirements of the pole, there is a big enough
difference to allow for a geometry change.

The elastic stresses calculated by using elementary cases are higher than the
elastic strength according to Eurocode, described in Section 3.1.2. This may
imply an effect of prevented transverse expansion, described in Section
3.4.3, which then also has an effect on the plastic strength.

6.1 Model 1

The purpose of Model 1 was to capture the behavior for the pole tested in
the field. The concrete damage plasticity model was defined according to
CEB, with small adjustments to give a reasonable behavior.

The failure load for Model 1 is 102 kN. When analyzing the centroid values
for the failure load, compressive stresses of 99.5 MPa are found at the edge
of the support. The stress on the tension side is 4.2 MPa at the same time.
The highest value for the compression strength, used in the concrete damage
plasticity model, is 71.60 MPa and the highest value for the tension strength
is 4.45 MPa. Taking the effect of prevented transverse expansion into
account, the stresses obtained are reasonable. The elastic compressive stress,
read out from the curve showing stress for different loads in Section 5.2.3, is
also very close to the elastic stress estimated from the field test.

When comparing the load-displacement relation for different loads from the
field test with Model 1, their behavior is very similar. Therefore, with both
elastic stresses and the behavior when it comes to bending agreeing between
the FE-model and the field test, Model 1 can be used as a template when
creating models with different geometries.

6.2 Type of failure

When studying the field test, both on the test site and by watching the film
from it, the failure probably is a compression failure in the concrete with a
ductile behavior. However, it is hard to tell if the failure did occur on the
compressive side or the tension side, because when the failure load is reach,
after a slow procedure when the load was increased and the pole was

55
 bending out, the failure goes very fast and is difficult to catch with the naked
eye.

When analyzing the FE-model, the assumption which failure most likely
will occur, and did occur on the field, was confirmed. While tension stresses
in the concrete did not reach the strength limit, compression stresses did.
Furthermore, the steel tendons reach the yield stress before failure.
According to theory, see Section 3.1.4, this is the requirement for a ductile
compressive failure in the concrete.

When optimizing the geometry, the behavior changes. For most of the
optimized models the type of failure will be the same as for Model 1, but in
some cases the compressive stresses are lower, while tension stresses
increase. When the tensile strength in the concrete is reached, cracks occur
and the reinforcement is acting on the tension side. If the concrete reaches its
ultimate compressive strength before the failure of the steel occurs, the
failure will be the same as for Model 1, meaning compressive failure in the
concrete with a ductile behavior. Because of the amount of high strength
steel used, this is most likely the case. However, if the steel tears off before
the compressive strength in the concrete is reached, the behavior of the
failure will be ductile if the steel has reached the yield stress, but brittle if it
has not. The second case happens when the amount of reinforcement used is
too small. Therefore, it will most likely not be the reason for failure in this
case.

Thus, the behavior of the failure for most of the models, will be compressive
failure in the concrete with a ductile behavior. This may differ for some
geometries where the failure could be a tensile failure in the steel with a
ductile behavior. However, the behavior in both cases is ductile.

6.3 Comparison of FE-models and test results

As mentioned in the introduction, Section 1.1, and the theory Section 3.4,
RISE carried out bending tests on wood poles. The mean values of the
bending moment and the corresponding load are compared with the models
created in BRIGADE/Plus to illustrate which dimensions of a concrete pole
are the most suitable for the Swedish local grid. Results from the bending
tests at RISE, as well as results from the field test conducted in this study,
are reported in Table 27, together with the failure load, the corresponding
bending moment and the maximum deflection at the top.

56
Table 27: Failure load, corresponding bending moment and displacement for poles tested in the field
and at RISE and all FE-models.

Model Failure load Bending moment Displacement

[kN] [kNm] [m]

RISE 9.2 90.5 2.60

Field 103 1650 1.95
Model 1 102 1630 2.00
Model 2 93.9 1502 1.86
Model 3 80.9 1295 1.65
Model 4 51.7 827 1.00
Model 5 44.9 718 1.83
Model 6 52.8 520 0.53

The weights for the FE-models are reported in Table 28. The ratio between
the weight of Models 2-6 and Model 1 are also reported, to provide a picture
of the effect of different geometry changes. In Figure 37 the relation
between the weight and displacement is illustrated.
Table 28: Weight of all FE-models and the ratio between the
weight of Model 1 and the other models in %.

Model Weight Ratio

[tonne] [%]

Model 1 9.24 100.0

Model 2 7.20 77.9
Model 3 5.85 63.2
Model 4 4.46 48.3
Model 5 3.44 37.2
Model 6 2.32 25.1

Figure 37: Weight and displacement for the FE-models. The weight for each model in relation to
Model 1 is given in percent.

57
 A comparison between the displacement, when the models are loaded from
0 kN up to 45 kN, are illustrated in Figure 38. The maximum displacement,
within this load span, are reported in the figure.

Figure 38: Displacement for all FE-models, loaded from 0 to 45 kN. The maximum displa cement for
this load span are given in the figure.

6.4 Weight reduction of the pole

Making the pole slenderer, but keeping the same concrete thickness, results
in almost the same capacity but a significant weight reduction. However,
these geometry changes lead to much higher displacements. The loss of
capacity, due to such a geometry change, can be achieved by making the
pole shorter. With a decreasing length of the pole, but with all other
parameters staying the same, displacements decrease.

Comparing the displacements of the FE-models with the wood poles tested
by RISE, no deflection as big as for the wood pole is observed for any of the
geometries analyzed.

The magnitude of the possible weight reduction depends on several things,

such as which electrical grid the pole should be designed for and the
geographical location. The comparison between the capacity for the pole
tested in the field and the pole tested by RISE provides a picture of the
difference between poles for the local and regional grid.

Comparing the results with the requirements for the actual pole, there is a
difference big enough to imply a geometry change, resulting in a 30%
reduction of the mass. Looking at the requirements for the local network the

58
change can be even bigger, resulting in weight reductions of 75% or more,
depending on the geometry of the pole.

59
60
7. Discussion

7.1 Comparison between the field test and Model 1

The maximum load for the FE-model was higher than the failure load from
the field test, which implies that the capacity for the FE-model is
overestimated in BRIGADE/Plus. When analyzing the results, compressive
stresses in the concrete were around 111 MPa, when looking at the centroid
probe value, which is too high to be reasonable. When looking at stresses in
the FE-model for the load corresponding to the failure load in the field, the
size of the stresses seems more reasonable. Therefore, the stresses obtained
at that time were determined to be the maximum allowable stresses and used
as references when creating new models with different geometries.

The magnitude of the moment, when the first crack occurred, is smaller for
the FE-model than the result of the calculations of the pole tested in the
field. Changes in the stress-crack opening model may change that, which
makes the material model interesting to examine further. This, because of
limitations in time, was not considered in this study.

7.2 Reliability of the results for the optimized models

Because the maximum stresses, leading to failure, were determined for

Model 1 when the behavior agreed with the field model, the results for
Models 2-6 are reliable. Therefore, the FE-models provide a good picture of
the possibility of changing the geometry of a concrete pole in order to fulfill
requirements and preferences for use in the electrical network in Sweden.

7.3 The choice of methods

The methods used to create material models was based on the theory of
previous works and was, particularly, a combination of Hilleborg’s theories
about fracture energy [27], and the material behavior of concrete and steel
according to CEB [34] and EN 1992 [20]. Because these methods have been
used in several studies, some of them mentioned in the literature review and
theory section, where the theory has been compared with experimental
results, they were considered credible.

The tensile-crack opening relation, used in the material model, was based on
the combination of theories from CEB [34], EN 1992 [20] and more, e.g. the
way to calculate the fracture energy according to Kazemi et. al [26]. Using
different ways to calculate the stress-crack opening relation, which includes
calculations on fracture energy and crack width, according to Section 3.2 in
the theory chapter, gave very different results. Finally the result used for the

61
material model, which is reported in method Section 4.2.2, is a combination
adjusted for the FE-model to create a behavior similar to the test model.

62
8. Conclusions
The failure most likely to occur is a compressive failure in the concrete.
Because the tendons reach their plastic behavior before the failure load is
reached, the behavior of the failure is most likely to be ductile.

If the type failure is tensile failure in the tendons, which is not likely, the
type of failure is most likely to be ductile because of the amount of
reinforcement.

The material model used gave a credible result, with the behavior of the FE-
model consistent with the behavior of the pole tested in the field.

The failure load and the maximum displacement decrease with a decreasing
thickness of the concrete.

When changing the diameter to a smaller one, the strength of the pole
decreases, while the displacements of the pole increase. A reduction of the
diameter, without changing the thickness of the concrete, gives a weight
reduction around 30 % for a height of 21 m.

The capacity loss of the pole when making it more slender can be gained by
making it shorter. Hence, the combination of a smaller diameter and a
reduced length results in the most effective weight reduction.

Depending on the voltage in the lines and the geographical location of the
pole, a weight reduction of 30-75%, or more, is possible. Still fulfilling the
requirements, a weight reduction around 30% is possible for the type of
poles that was tested. It is possible to reduce the weight with more than 75%
for poles to the local grid. This means a mass reduction of 2 and 7 tonnes
respectively.

63
64
References

[1] Eurelectric, "Power Distribution in Europe, Facts & Figures.," 2013.

[Online]. Available: http://www.eurelectric.org/media/113155/dso_report-
web_final-2013-030-0764-01-e.pdf. [Accessed 23 01 2017].
[2] A. Salman M. and Y. Li, "Age-dependent fragility and life-cycle cost
analysis of wood and steel power distribution poles subjected to
hurricanes.," Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. Maintenance,
Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 890-
903, 8 12 2016.
[3] T. Tanifener, "Finite Element Analysis of different shrinkage-induced
cracking in centrifugally cast concrete poles," Middle East Technical
University, 2012.
[4] C. Bolin A and S. Smith T., "Life cycle assessment of pentachlorophenol-
treated wooden utility poles with comparisons to steel and concrete utility
poles," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 5, pp.
2475-2486, 2011.
[5] M. Erlandsson, "Jämförelse av miljöpåverkan från ledningsstolpar av olika
material - en livscykelanalys," IVL Svenska miljöinstitutet, Stockholm,
2012.
[6] J. Schmithbauer Crona and S. Bydén, "LCA av TCC-betongsliper och
linoljeimpregnerad träsliper som alternativ till kreosotsliper," Studio
CRONA AB & Melica ek., 2012.
[7] P. Kastinen and D. Wu, "Alternativ till kreosotimpregnerade stolpar för
Vattenfalls elnät i Sverige," Univeristy West. Department of Engineering
Science. , Trollhättan, 2015.
[8] Svensk Energi, "Elfakta," 15 August 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www.svenskenergi.se/Elfakta/Elnatet/. [Accessed 24 01 2017].
[9] Swedish Chemicals agency, "Träskydd med kreosot," 12 12 2016. [Online].
Available: https://goo.gl/cbW2za. [Accessed 01 02 2017].
[10] SGU, "Bedömningsgrunder för grundvatten. SGU-rapport 2013:01," SGU
Geological Survey of Sweden, Uppsala, 2013.
[11] Vattenfall, "Our environmental work," If Vattenfall distribution, 2017.
[Online]. Available: https://www.vattenfalleldistribution.se/vart-
arbete/miljoarbete. [Accessed 24 01 2017].
[12] J. B. Angeling, "Utredning om friledningsstolpar i betong," Abetong AB,
Växjö, 2016.
[13] SS-EN 50423-1-1, Overhead electrical lines exceeding AC 1kV upt to and
including AC 45 kV. Including SS-EN 50423-3-18 National Normative
Aspects (NNA for Sweden, Kista: SEK Svensk Elstandard, 2013.
[14] SS-EN 50341-1-1, Overhead electrical lines exceeding AC 45 kV, Kista:
SEK Svensk Elstandard, 2013.

65
[15] SS-EN 50341-3-18, Overhead electrical lines exceeding AC 45 kV, Part 3-
18 National Normative Aspects (NNA) for Sweden, Kista: SEK Svensk
Elstandard, 2013.
[16] SS-EN 12843, Precast concrete products - Masts and poles, Stockholm: SIS
Swedish Standard Institute, 2004.
[17] Jerol, "Products - Product data sheet," May 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://jerol.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Kap01_Produktblad_2016-10-
18.pdf. [Accessed 01 02 2017].
[18] E. Dartfeldt, "Alternativa stolpmaterial. Rapport 2015:163," Energiforsk
AB, 2015.
[19] A. Kudzys and R. Kliukas, "The limit state design of spun concrete columns
using load combinations recommended by EN 1990 and ASCE/SEI 7-05,"
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 289-297,
2009.
[20] SS-EN 1992-1-1:2005, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-
1: General rules and rules for buildings, Stockholm: SIS, Swedish Standard
Institute. SIS Förlag AB, 2005.
[21] M. Kuebler and M. A. Polak, "Torsion tests on spun-cast," PCI Journal, no.
Spring, pp. 120-141, 2012.
[22] A. M. Shalaby, "Finite Elemet Analysis of Spun Concrete Poles Reinforced
with Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GRFP Bars," Current Science
International, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 658-667, 2015.
[23] A. Kenna and B. Basu, "A finite element model for pre-stressed or post-
tensioned concrete wind turbine towers," Wind Energy, no. 18, pp. 1593-
1610, 2014.
[24] H.-G. Kwak and F. C. Filippou, "Finite Element Analysis of reinforced
concrete structures under momtonic loads," Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Califonia, Berkeley, 1990.
[25] R. Masmoudi, H. Mohamed and S. Metiche, "Finite Element Modeling for
Deflection and," Journal of REINFORCED PLASTICS AND
COMPOSITES, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 639-658, 2008.
[26] T. M. Kazemi , F. Fazileh and M. A. Ebrahiminezh, "Cohesive Crack Model
and Fracture Energy," Journal of materials in civil engineering, pp. 884-
890, October 2007.
[27] G. Markeset and A. Hillerborg, "Softening of concrete in compression -
localization and size effects," Cement and Concrete Research,, vol. 25, no.
4, pp. 702-708, 1995.
[28] A. Fernándes-Canteli, L. Castañón, B. Nieto, M. Lozano, T. Holušová and .
S. Seitl, "Determining fracture energy parameters of concrete from the
modified compact tension test," Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, vol. 30,
pp. 383-393, 2014.
[29] B. Mercan, A. E. Schultz and H. K. Stol, "Finite element modeling of
prestressed concrete spandrel beams," Engineering Structures, no. 32 , pp.
2804-2813, 2010.

66
[30] B. Engström, "Beräkning av betongkonstruktioner. Rapport 2007:13,"
Chalmers Tekniska Högskola, Göteborg. , 2008.
[31] SS-EN 206-1, Concrete – Part 1: Specification, performance, production
and conformity, Stockholm: SIS, Swedish Standards Institute. SIS Förlag
AB., 2001.
[32] G. Möller and N. Petersons, Betonghandbok, Material. 2 Edition. Chapter
11., Stockholm: Svenskt Tryck AB, 1994.
[33] A. Gholamhoseini, R. I. Gilbert, M. Bradford and Z.-T. Chang,
"Longitudinal shear stress and bond–slip relationships in composite concrete
slabs," Engineering Structures, vol. 69, p. 37–48 , 2014.
[34] CEB, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Lausanne: Comite Euro-International Du
Béton, 1993.
[35] M. Johansson, Extracts for Timber Engineering, Eurocode 0 and 1,
Elementary cases, Växjö: Linneus University, 2016.
[36] N. Ottosen and H. Petersson, Introduction to the finite element method,
Essex, England: Prentice Hall Europe, 1992.
[37] Scanscot Technology AB, "BRIGADE/Plus," Scanscot Technology AB -
Copyright © 2017., [Online]. Available:
https://scanscot.com/products/bridge-design/brigade-plus/. [Accessed 23 03
2017].
[38] Simulia, "Abaqus Analysis User's Manual 6.9," Dassault Systèmes,
Providence, USA, 2009.
[39] M. Fredriksson and H. Yhlen, "FE-Analysis of cracking in transversal
support beams of concrete bridges, Investigation into the cause of detected
cracks," Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, 2010.
[40] T. Job and R. Ananth, "Nonlinear Analysis of Shear Dominant Prestressed,"
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India .

67
Faculty of Technology
351 95 Växjö, Sweden
Telephone: +46 772-28 80 00, fax +46 470-832 17