×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Structural analysis of tapered monopoles

Structural analysis of tapered monopoles

Structural analysis of tapered monopoles

(OP)
Hi guys, long time lurker and a first time poster.

I'm writing some analysis software for Australian codes for steel monopoles. The software splits each pole segment into 10 smaller pieces with their own specific diameters and properties. Design shears and moments are calculated using the principle of superposition by determining the mass/load over that segment and then treating it as a discrete point load with a lever arm extending to the fixed end. So far, this seems to have been working just fine.

...Until I tried to add functionality for calculating the natural frequency. The rotations and deflections at each point down the pole are determined using the moment-area theorem after obtaining the "natural frequency moment" for a cantilever (again, using superposition). When I analyse a uniform cross-section I get identical results to Microstran, but when I have two elements in the cantilever (e.g. 10.0m long) with different stiffnesses (I've been testing a 5.0m 508CHS at the base attached to a 5.0m 114CHS) my results are way out. While I believe I've narrowed it down to the way I'm calculating my natural frequency moment (where each "piece" of the pole is treated as a discrete mass with a specific lever arm based on it's height above the base), what I can't explain is that a hand calculation using superposition works just fine if you treat the mass of the two cross-sections as two independent UDLs. On the other hand, using a series of point loads (which is preferable, because the program can analyse the pole the same way regardless of taper) with changing stiffness does not. Is this a consequence of using the method of superposition? Is superposition even applicable in my case? I've come across some literature that suggests it might not be...

Thanks! :)

RE: Structural analysis of tapered monopoles

(OP)
I had tried that, but couldn't find exactly what I needed. I found my solution elsewhere. Cheers though!

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources