Below is the proposed analysis to evaluate the mechanical feasibility of a selected design for

integrated small cell deployment on a luminaire. It is broken up into five sections: Static Loading,
Fatigue, Vibrations/Frequency Response, 3g Loading, and Fastener Analysis. Most of the
analysis will be performed using finite-element analysis methods in Nastran, with
hand-calculations done to verify legitimacy of results. Wording in ​bolded, red font​ is used to
indicate where input is needed from Eaton Lighting.

Summary/Overview
Static Loading
Load combinations defined by Section 3 of AASHTO standards will be applied to the structure.
These load combinations will consist of wind loading, ice loading, and dead loading, and are
defined in more detail below in the static loading portion of this document.

Fatigue Analysis
Loading and stress ranges for fatigue analysis are defined by Section 11 of AASHTO standards,
which the design team currently does not have access to. Scope of this analysis shall be
determined once the team acquires the standards.

Vibrations- Frequency Response

Modal analysis will be used to determine the natural frequency of the pole. Then, wind loading
will be applied to the luminaire as a sinusoidal load at the natural frequencies of the pole. Stress
will be recovered and compared to the material endurance limit. More detail on this proposed
analysis process is presented below in the Vibrations-Frequency Response portion of this
document.

3g Loading
3g acceleration loading will be applied statically in three orthogonal directions. This could also
be applied as a sinusoidal load for a frequency response.

Fastener Analysis
If the design requires the use of bolts/screws, the team will evaluate the axial and shear
stresses taken by the fasteners to calculate fastener margins.
1. Static Loading

A static analysis should be evaluated, and will include wind loading and ice loading as specified
by AASHTO standards in Section 3: ​highways.transportation.org/documents/sec03-lts-5trev.pdf

Wind Loading
Wind loading will be based on 90 mph wind speeds. The isotachs in Figure 3-2 of the AASHTO
standards show that the Atlanta area and the majority of the continental U.S. should design to
90 mph winds. ​Should we design for more than 90 mph?

Equation 3-1 of the AASHTO standards will be used to calculate a pressure applied to the
luminaire,

P z = 0.00256K z GV 2 I r C d (psf) (Eqn 3-1)

where ​K​z​ is the height and exposure factor, ​I​r​ is the wind importance factor, ​G​ is the gust effect
factor, ​V​ is the wind speed, and ​C​c​ is the drag coefficient. This pressure can be used to
calculate a distributed force on the luminaire,

F = EP A × P z

where ​EPA​ is the effective projected area of the pole, and ​P​z​ is the wind pressure. If EPA
includes the drag coefficient ​C​d​, then there will be no need to include ​C​c​ in the wind pressure
calculation.

This distributed force will be conservatively assumed to be constant along the height of the pole
and along all area being acted on by the wind load. ​Is this a good assumption? ​The wind
force will also be applied to the pole/fixture at different angles to determine the worst case.

Ice Loading
As per AASHTO standards, a pressure of 3 psf will be applied to all surfaces.

Dead Load
A 1g vertical acceleration load will be applied downward on the pole/fixture to simulate the load
of its own weight.

Load Combinations
Per Table 3-1 of the AASHTO standards, the following combinations of the previously defined
loads (wind, ice, and dead) will be applied as individual load cases:
Group load IV of Table 3-1 is not considered among the static load cases. It will be considered
in a later section dedicated to fatigue analysis.

For the static load cases, maximum Von Mises stress values will be recovered and compared
with the yield strength of the pole/fixture material.
2. Fatigue Analysis

Requirements and loading for fatigue analysis are defined by ​Section 11 in AASHTO
standards.​ The design team does not yet have access to these yet. The scope of this analysis
will be determined once the design team has access to the standards.
3. Vibrations - Frequency Response

Modal Analysis (Nastran SOL 103 Real Eigenvalues)

A modal analysis on the structure shall be performed to recover the resonant frequencies of the
structure.

Frequency/Harmonic Response (Nastran SOL 108 Direct Frequency Response)

Then, using Nastran SOL 108, the wind load from Equation 3-1 shall be applied as a sinusoidal
load at forcing frequencies matching the resonant frequencies from the preceding modal
analysis.

Several sources* indicate that prevalent modes in the destructive vibrations of light poles are
the first two modes. Therefore, a range of forcing frequencies should be applied to the structure
that include the first two resonant frequencies of the structure.

Furthermore, these sources* indicate that these resonant frequencies are not caused by high
wind speeds as considered in the static load case, but rather by wind speeds ranging from 5-35
mph. Therefore, the magnitude of the sinusoidal load shall be conservatively determined by
Equation 3-1 with a wind speed of 50 mph.

Alternatively, the magnitude of the sinusoidal load could be determined from the relationship
derived by a previous capstone team, Team Jelly:

fD 19.7μ
v= .198 + ρD (Eqn 2)
Equation 2 shows an experimentally derived relationship from Team Jelly that relates wind
speed, ​v,​ to the frequency that the pole will vibrate at, ​f​. ⍴
​ ​ is the density of the air, ​μ​ is the
viscosity of the air, and ​D​ is the average hydraulic diameter of the pole. This relationship may
not be accurate for a pole that includes additional attachments compared to the plain pole that
Team Jelly evaluated.

Magnitude of sinusoidal wind load could be determined by

a. Conservative estimate of wind force due to 50 mph wind. (Wind speeds that cause
the first two mode shape are likely to be less than 50 mph)
b. 90 mph wind force from static load case (Seems excessively conservative, as wind
speeds that produce the first two modes should be well below 90 mph)
c. The experimentally derived relationship from Team Jelly
d. Our own experimentally derived relationship or some other study
Worst case stresses will occur when the forcing frequency of the load matches a resonant
frequency of the pole/fixture structure. These stresses will be recovered and compared to the
endurance limit of the pole/fixture material. If the stresses exceed the endurance limit, the
number of cycles until failure shall be determined.

Also, a structural damping coefficient of 0.02 will be assumed for structural steel while
performing the analysis. This is the value assumed by Team Jelly. ​Is this a good assumption?

*Sources
http://www.lithonia.com/micro_webs/pdfs/pole-vibration.pdf
https://generalstructuresinc.com/info/wind-induced-vibrations/
http://www.acuitybrands.com/resources/tools-and-documents/pole-resources/wind-harmonics#9
d9df07f-662b-4bec-aa6b-93dd7bfa6c66
highways.transportation.org/documents/sec03-lts-5trev.pdf

4. 3g Load

Per Eaton Lighting, the pole and all internal electronics must be able to withstand 3g load. This
acceleration load could be applied statically, or forced at resonant frequencies for a frequency
response analysis.
Should this load be applied statically, sinusoidally, or both?
Should the 3g acceleration be applied separately in X, Y, and Z, or all combined?

5. Fastener Analysis

If the integrated small cell is deployed in a manner that requires a separate structure that bolts
onto the pole, then axial and shear forces in the bolts shall be calculated. These will used to
calculate stresses seen by the bolts, which will be compared against allowables from a
mechanical design textbook or some other trusted source to identify bolt margins of safety.

6. Additional Information Needed for Analysis

Full AASHTO Standards document for up-to-date static and fatigue loading requirements

Pole Material and its properties (these can be assumed by the ME team as necessary, but
Eaton may want to provide input)

Critical Dimensions - CAD/Geometry

ANSI and IP Standards