Fracture Energy Calculations for Wooden Utility Poles

Nathan A. Rose

Introduction

The following mechanisms of energy dissipation may need to be considered when calculating the initial speed
of a vehicle that impacted a wooden utility pole: (1) crushing of the vehicle; (2) full or partial fracture of the
pole; (3) moving and tilting of the pole within the ground; (4) acceleration of the pole after a full fracture; and
(5) tire, and other dragging forces, acting on the vehicle during its post-impact motion [Dailey, 2009; Cofone,
2007 and 2012].i Each of these will be discussed in this article. However, the focus will be on validating Kent
and Strothers’ method for calculating the full or partial fracture energy for the pole [1998].

In general, a vehicle’s kinetic energy at the time of impact with a wooden utility pole can be calculated by adding
the vehicle’s post impact kinetic energy to the energies dissipated through vehicle crush, pole fracture, and pole
movement (including tilting and accelerating after fracture). This is described mathematically by Equation (1).

= + + + (1)

In Equation (1), the variables have the following meaning:

= kinetic energy of the vehicle at first contact with the pole

= energy dissipated in crushing the vehicle

= energy dissipated in fully or partially fracturing the pole

= energy dissipated in moving or tilting the pole

= kinetic energy of the vehicle at separation from the pole

Once the kinetic energy at impact with the pole is obtained, this kinetic energy can be converted to the impact
speed with the following equation.

2 ⋅ (2)
=

In Equation (2), the variables have the following meaning:

= weight of the vehicle

= gravitational constant

Crushing of the Vehicle – An extensive literature covers methods for calculating the energy dissipated during
crushing of the vehicle. For the purpose of this study, we relied on the crash tests cited and analyzed by Craig
in Accident Reconstruction Journal [1993, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d]. These tests were passenger car impacts with
rigid pole barriers, thus they were tests in which no energy was dissipated by moving, deforming, or fracturing
the pole. All of the collision energy could be reasonably assumed to have been dissipated through crushing of
the vehicle. Craig had analyzed this data by plotting the maximum vehicle crush versus the equivalent impact
speed for each test. Some of the tests were repeated impacts of the same vehicle into the pole barrier, so for
these tests, the equivalent impact speed was calculated by adding up the collision energies from the impacts to
which the vehicle had been subjected.

Rather than rely on Craig’s previous analysis of this data, we conducted our own curve-fitting analysis with
Microsoft Excel. The graph of Figure 1 shows the data from the Craig publications with the maximum vehicle
crush plotted on the horizontal axis in inches and the impact velocity plotted on the vertical axis in miles per
hour. This graph also depicts the second-order polynomial that we fit to the data, which had the following
equation:
(3)
= 0.0069 ⋅ + 0.7671 ⋅ + 1.475

In Equation (3), the variables have the following meaning:

= maximum crush in inches

= impact velocity in mph

When applied to the analysis of a real-world crash, where there are energy dissipation mechanisms other than
the vehicle crush, the speed calculated with Equation (3) will be the Equivalent Barrier Speed (EBS), not the
impact speed.

Figure 1 – Craig Pole Impact Data

The R2 value for Equation (3) was 0.9417. To quantify the uncertainty in speeds calculated with this equation,
an upper and lower bound was established that would encompass all of the data plotted in Figure 1. These
curves are depicted with dotted lines in Figure 1. Through this process, we concluded that all of the data was
captured by including a ±5.5 mph uncertainty on speeds calculated with Equation (3). Clearly, there cannot be
5 inches of crush for an impact speed of 0 miles per hour, so this uncertainty would narrow at low impact
speeds. Overall, though, this range of uncertainty is not surprising considering the fact that this approach of
lumping all of these vehicles into one dataset ignores the structural differences that would clearly exist between
these vehicles [Varat and Husher, 1999].

Moving and Tilting of the Pole – Dailey [2009] and Cofone [2007 and 2012] discuss a method for calculating
the energy dissipated by moving and tilting the pole within the ground. This method is based on Newton’s
Third Law, which requires that the force applied to the pole by the vehicle is equal in magnitude and opposite
in direction to the force applied to the vehicle by the pole. If the collision force can be calculated based on the
vehicle deformation, and then the distance through which that force acted can be determined (this would be
the pole displacement at the level of the force application), then the energy dissipated in displacing the pole can
be calculated. Dailey reports that this energy can be calculated with the following equation:

= ⋅ ⋅ (4)

In Equation (4), the variables have the following meaning:

= average collision force

= displacement of the pole at the level of the collision force

= effective force coefficient

The effective force coefficient is a multiplier that accounts for the changing orientation of the force applied to
the pole as it rotates. Dailey’s publication gives instructions for calculating this factor. Dailey recommends using
methods of crush analysis to calculate the average collision force for this calculation, though other methods
could also be used.

Post-Impact Motion of the Vehicle – There are many references that describe methods for calculating the
energy dissipated during the post-impact movement of a vehicle. Carter [2012], for instance, discussed several
methods for calculating the energy dissipated while a vehicle yaws across the road surface. Rose [2016] discussed
the effects of high post-impact spin rates within this analysis and also discussed the use of simulation for
quantifying the post-impact energy dissipation.

Fracturing of the Pole – Several studies have discussed methods for calculating the energy dissipated by full or
partial fracture of a utility pole. The discuss here will focus only on the 1998 study by Kent and Strother, in
which they made “a first attempt to understand the energy absorbing processes operating when vehicles strike
trees and wooden poles in order to make reasonable estimates of the magnitude of the tree/pole energy
dissipated in the crash.” Since the time Kent and Strother published their study, additional utility pole impact
tests have been added to the literature that can be used to validate their approach [Croteau, 2011].

Kent and Strother derived the following expression, which yields the energy to statically initiate fracture of a
wooden utility pole ( ):
 ⋅ ⋅ (5)
=
6⋅ ⋅

In this equation, the variables have the following meaning:

= the modulus of rupture for the wood species under consideration

= the cross-sectional moment of inertia for the pole

= the application height of the force above the ground

= the radius of the pole

= the radial modulus of elasticity

The modulus of rupture and the longitudinal modulus of elasticity for the relevant wood species can be obtained
from the Wood Handbook, which is produced by the Forest Products Laboratory of the United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service. A PDF version of this handbook is accessible for free via a Google
search. The Wood Handbook does not report the radial modulus of elasticity for the various wood species, but
it does report the ratio of the radial to the longitudinal, so the radial modulus of rupture can be calculated. The
cross-sectional moment of inertia of the pole can be calculated with the following equation.

= (6)
64

In this equation:

= the diameter of the pole

Testing and modeling reported by Kent and Strother showed that the dynamic energy required to fracture a
wooden utility pole is greater than the static fracture energy, so Equation (5) will underestimate the fracture
energy for a vehicle impacting a utility pole. In their article, Kent and Strother reported the difference between
the static and dynamic fracture energies for various pole diameters (see Table 8 in their article). To obtain a
reasonable approximation of the degree to which the energy calculated by Equation (5) should be increased to
represent dynamic loading of the pole, we fit a line to the Kent and Strother data. The result was the following
equation:

= −0.007 ⋅ + 1.2294 (7)

In this equation:

= the pole diameter

= the correction factor for Equation (5)

The R2 value for this equation was 0.7562.

In addition to the issue of static versus dynamic fracture initiation energy, Kent and Strother noted that “several
confounding issues must be addressed when dealing with wood structures. Properties of wood not only vary
greatly depending upon species, but they also can be strongly dependent on geographical location, moisture
content, grain orientation, grain coarseness, texture, hard mineral deposits, grain irregularities, and treatment.”
They state that, of these variables, moisture content is perhaps the most influential and they present the
following equation that can be used to adjust any of the mechanical properties of the wood, based on the
moisture content. This equation is also listed in the Wood Handbook.

= ⋅ (8)

In this equation:

= the material property under consideration

= the material property at 12% moisture content

= the material property for green wood

= the actual moisture content of the pole

= a reference moisture content (in percent) specific to the wood type

So far, this section has laid out a method for calculating the energy required to initiate fracture of the pole. But
what about the energy required to fully fracture the pole? Based on pendulum testing conducted by Kent and
Strother with 1/8th scale poles, they concluded that “a second-order polynomial fit most accurately represents
the relationship between the energy to completely fracture the pole specimens and the specimen moment of
inertia…” They presented the following equation for calculating the fracture energy for poles constructed of
southern yellow pine:

= −0.0051 ⋅ + 39.782 ⋅ (9)

For poles that completely fracture, Kent and Strother recommend, first, calculating the energy required to
initiate the fracture [Equations (5) through (8)]. If the pole is not made of southern yellow pine, then they
recommend next calculating the fracture initiation energy for the same size pole as if it were made of southern
yellow pine, then based on the ratio of the fracture initiation energies for the actual pole and the southern
yellow pine pole, scaling the result of Equation (9) to obtain the total fracture initiation energy. The flow chart
of Figure 2 summarizes the approach they propose.ii

Validating the Kent and Strother Approach

In 2011, Croteau reported seven full-scale crash tests that involved moving barriers impacting wooden utility
poles. Five of these tests involved non-deformable moving barriers and two involved deformable moving barriers.
The face of the deformable barrier had a stiffness that was representative of the frontal stiffness of a passenger
car. Both barriers had a bumper height of 26 inches. The class 4 utility poles that were tested were constructed
of southern yellow pine and were coated with Pentachlorophenol preservative. They were 35 feet tall with a
nominal diameter of 10 inches and were buried six feet deep. They were mounted in hard-packed desert soil.
 Figure 2 – Flow Chart Summarizing the Kent and Strother Method

After the tests, the moisture content of each pole was measured. The authors also reported that the poles were
surrounded by a four-inch thick reinforced concrete pad to replicate a typical sidewalk. This concrete prevented
the poles from moving and tilting within the soil, and so, there was no need to consider these energy dissipation
mechanisms in our analysis of these tests. The non-deformable barrier tests also eliminated the need to consider
vehicle deformation, and since Croteau reported the vehicle speeds immediately following pole fracture, there
was no need to calculate the post-impact speed. This allowed the pole fracture energy to be isolated in the test
data and in the calculations.

Table 1 lists the barrier impact speeds and the pole moisture contents for the five tests that utilized a non-
deformable barrier. This table also lists the actual change in velocity that the barrier experienced in each test
(up to the point of pole fracture), the post-fracture barrier speed, and the actual energy dissipated in fracturing
the pole. Table 2 lists the barrier impact speeds and the pole moisture contents for the two tests that utilized a
deformable barrier. All five of the crash tests with the non-deformable barrier resulted in complete fracture of
the pole. Of the two tests with a deformable moving barrier, one pole fractured (Test #4 @ 33.2 mph) and one
did not (Test #6 @ 14.8 mph impact speed).

Actual
Energy
Impact Speed
Moisture Barrier V during Post-Fracture
Dissipated
Test # of Barrier Pole Fracture Speed of Barrier
Content (%) During Pole
(mph) (mph) (mph)
Fracture (ft-lb)
1 30.5 12 2.1 28.4 18593
2 31.2 12 2.2 29.0 19908
3 30.2 12 2.0 28.2 17557
5 40.9 10 2.1 38.8 25159
7 20.2 17 2.9 17.3 16347
Table 1 – Non-Deformable Moving Barrier Tests
 Barrier
Moisture
Test # Impact Speed
Content (%)
(mph)
4 33.2 17
6 14.8 13
Table 2 – Deformable Moving Barrier Tests

Calculations for the Tests with the Non-Deformable Barriers: We used Equations (5), (6), (7), and (8) to
calculate the dynamic fracture initiation energy for the poles involved in the tests with the non-deformable
barriers. There are four species of southern yellow pine (shortleaf, slash, longleaf, and loblolly). Croteau did not
report of which species the poles in his tests were constructed. Thus, in obtaining material properties from the
Wood Handbook, we obtained the low and high values amongst these four species and used them to establish
a low-end and high-end calculation of the dynamic fracture initiation energy. Table 3 lists the range of values
employed in the analysis for the modulus of rupture. The second and third columns list this modulus for green
wood, the fourth and fifth for wood with a 12% moisture content, and the sixth and seventh for the actual
reported moisture contents, with the adjustment being made using Equation (8). The adjusted values based on
the actual moisture contents were the ones actually used in the calculations. Tables 4 lists similar values for the
longitudinal modulus of elasticity and Table 5 for the radial modulus of elasticity.

Low End High End Low End High End Adjusted Adjusted
Modulus of Modulus of Modulus of Modulus of Low End High End
Test #
Rupture for Rupture for Rupture @ Rupture @ Modulus of Modulus of
Green (psi) Green (psi) 12% (psi) 12% (psi) Rupture (psi) Rupture (psi)
1 7,300 8,700 12,800 16,300 12,800 16,300
2 7,300 8,700 12,800 16,300 12,800 16,300
3 7,300 8,700 12,800 16,300 12,800 16,300
5 7,300 8,700 12,800 16,300 14,501 18,740
7 7,300 8,700 12,800 16,300 9,370 11,500
Table 3 – Range of Values for Modulus of Rupture

Low End High End Low End High End Adjusted Low Adjusted
Long. Elastic Long. Elastic Long. Elastic Long. Elastic End Long. High End
Test #
Modulus for Modulus for Modulus @ Modulus @ Elastic Long. Elastic
Green (psi) Green (psi) 12% (psi) 12% (psi) Modulus (psi) Modulus (psi)
1 1,400,000 1,530,000 1,790,000 1,980,000 1,790,000 1,980,000
2 1,400,000 1,530,000 1,790,000 1,980,000 1,790,000 1,980,000
3 1,400,000 1,530,000 1,790,000 1,980,000 1,790,000 1,980,000
5 1,400,000 1,530,000 1,790,000 1,980,000 1,890,470 2,096,758
7 1,400,000 1,530,000 1,790,000 1,980,000 1,561,570 1,715,764
Table 4 – Range of Values for the Longitudinal Elastic Modulus
 Adjusted Low Adjusted
End Radial High End
Test #
Elastic Radial Elastic
Modulus (psi) Modulus (psi)
1 202,270 146,520
2 202,270 146,520
3 202,270 146,520
5 213,623 155,160
7 176,457 126,967
Table 5 – Range of Values for the Radial Elastic Modulus

After calculating a range for the fracture initiation energy, we used Equation (9) to calculate the total fracture
energy, since all of 5 of the poles fractured completely. Since these poles were made of southern yellow pine,
there was no need to adjust the energy calculated with Equation (9). Table 6 lists the actual V and energy
dissipation during the pole fracture for each of the non-deformable barrier tests along with the range of these
values calculated using the Kent and Strother approach. For all five cases, the entire range of calculated fracture
initiation energies was less than the total fracture energy, as would be expected. In all but one case, the total
fracture energy calculated with Equation (9) overestimated the actual total fracture energy. However, all of the
calculated barrier velocity changes were within 0.9 mph of the actual value.

Actual Kent and Strother Model

Barrier Energy Low End High End
Barrier V
V Dissipated Dynamic Dynamic Total
During Fracture Fracture Fracture Using Total
Test # during
Pole Initiation Initiation Energy Fracture
Pole
Fracture Energy Energy (ft-lb) Energy
Fracture
(ft-lb) (ft-lb) (ft-lb) (mph)
(mph)
7,051 15,786 21,976 2.5
1 2.1 18,593
(-11,542) (-2,807) (+3,383) (+0.4)
7,051 15,786 21,976 2.4
2 2.2 19,908
(-12,857) (-4,122) (+2,068) (+0.2)
7,051 15,786 2.5
3 2.0 17,557 21,976
(-10,506) (-1,771) (+0.5)
8,570 19,705 1.8
5 2.1 25,159 21,976
(-16,589) (-5,454) (+0.3)
4,331 9,068 3.8
7 2.9 16,347 21,976
(-12,016) (-7,279) (+0.9)
Table 6 – Comparison between Actual and Calculated Values

Calculations for the Tests with the Deformable Barriers: Similar calculations were carried out for the cases
involving deformable moving barriers. However, for these cases, in addition to using Equations (5), (6), (7),
and (8) to calculate the dynamic fracture initiation energy for the poles, we also Equation (3) to calculate the
equivalent barrier speed for the crushing of the barrier. For the test at 14.8 mph (Test #6), Equation (3) yielded
an equivalent barrier speed of 13.1 mph, with a range of 7.6 to 18.6 mph. The mean of this range is 1.7 mph
below the actual impact speed, but the range encompasses the actual value. The pole did not fracture in this
case and this would likely be an instance in practice where a reconstructionist would neglect the energy that
went into deforming the fibers of the pole. In describing the damage to this pole after the test, though, Croteau
noted: “Creasing of fibers is apparent in the bumper contact area and outer-layer fibers on the non-struck side
began to pull apart in one small area.” Realistically, there was some energy absorbed by this pole, but it was
below the level necessary to initiate fracture. Application of the Kent and Strother fracture initiation model to
estimate this energy resulted in a speed range for this case of 14.6 to 16.3 mph, a range that contains the actual
speed (this range neglects the uncertainty in the calculation of the equivalent barrier speed for the barrier).

For the test at 33.2 mph (Test #4), Equation (3) yielded an equivalent barrier speed of 16.0 mph (10.5 mph to
21.5 mph). Following the fracture of the pole, the deformable barrier was still moving at 27.3 mph. Application
of the Kent and Strother model to estimate the energy dissipated in fracturing the pole and combining that
energy with the crush and post-impact energies resulted in a calculated speed range for this case of 32.1 to 32.6
mph, 0.6 to 1.1 mph below the actual speed. This range neglects the uncertainty in the calculation of the
equivalent barrier speed for the barrier deformation. If this was included, the full range would encompass the
actual impact speed. For this case, Croteau reported a total energy dissipation from the barrier crush and pole
fracture of 52,327 foot-pounds. Calculations with Equation (3) and with the Kent and Strother approach to
calculating the dynamic pole fracture initiation energy yielded a total energy dissipation between 42,864 and
47,600 foot-pounds.

Discussion and Conclusions

When reconstructing a vehicle collision with a wooden utility pole, the following mechanisms of energy
dissipation may need to be considered: (1) crushing of the vehicle; (2) full or partial fracture of the pole; (3)
moving and tilting of the pole within the ground; (4) acceleration of the pole after a full fracture; and (5) tire,
and other dragging forces, acting on the vehicle during its post-impact motion. One assessment that the
reconstructionist will have to make for any particular case is the significance of the energy absorbed by the pole.
In instances where the pole does not fracture (even partially), this energy can reasonably be neglected. However,
in instances when the pole fully or partially fractures, the method proposed by Kent and Strother provides a
method for calculating the likely energy absorbed by the pole.

This study has examined the degree to which the Kent and Strother method can reasonably be relied on to
accurately predicted pole fracture energies. To make this assessment, 7 full-scale tests reported by Croteau were
utilized. For all 6 tests in which the utility poles fractured, the Kent and Strothers model predicted a fracture
initiation energy that was less than the actual pole fracture energy. This is as expected, since the total energy to
fully fracture the pole would be expected to be greater than the energy to initiate the fracture. In 4 of the 6 tests
in which the utility poles fully fractured, the Kent and Strother method overestimated the total fracture energy.
For 2 of the tests with complete fracture, the model underestimated the total fracture energy. For the tests with
the non-deformable barrier, all of the calculated barrier velocity changes were within 0.9 mph of the actual
value. For the case with the deformable barrier where the pole did fracture, application of the Kent and Strother
model to estimate the energy dissipated in fracturing the pole and combining that energy with the crush and
post-impact energies resulted in a calculated speed range for this case of 32.1 to 32.6 mph, 0.6 to 1.1 mph below
the actual speed (this neglects the uncertainty in the calculation of the equivalent barrier speed for the barrier
deformation). For this case, calculations with Equation (3) and with the Kent and Strother approach to
calculating the dynamic pole fracture initiation energy yielded an underestimate of the total energy dissipation.

For the case with the deformable barrier where the pole did not fracture, Equation (3) yielded an equivalent
barrier speed of 13.1 mph, 1.7 mph below the actual impact speed. Because this would likely be an instance in
practice where a reconstructionist would neglect the energy that went into deforming the fibers of the pole,
reconstructionists would be likely to slightly underestimate the impact speed (this again neglects the uncertainty
in the calculation of the barrier impact speed for the barrier crush). Croteau did note some damage to the fibers
of the pole after this test. In this case, if a reconstructionist chose to try to incorporate some energy absorption
by the pole through application of the Kent and Strother fracture initiation model, the result would be a speed
range of 14.6 to 16.3 mph, a range that contains the actual speed, but generally overestimates the actual impact
speed. Overall, the Kent and Strother method yielded dissipated energies and Vs that were reasonable,
particularly when compared to the possibility of neglecting the energy absorbed by a fully or partially fractured
pole, a practice that is unfortunately not uncommon.

References

1. Carter, Neal, Gray Beauchamp, Nathan A. Rose, “Comparison of Calculated Speeds for a Yawing and
Braking Vehicle to Full-Scale Vehicle Tests,” Paper Number 2012-01-0620, Society of Automotive
Engineers, 2012.

2. Cofone, Joseph N., The Investigation of Automobile Collisions with Wooden Utility Poles and Trees, 2 nd
Edition, Institute of Police Technology and Management, 2012.

3. Cofone, J., Rich A., Scott, J., “A Comparison of Equations for Estimating Speed Based on Maximum
Static Deformation for Frontal Narrow Object Impacts,” Accident Reconstruction Journal, Volume 17,
No. 6, December 2007.

4. Craig, V.T., “Analysis of Pole Barrier Test Data and Impact Equations,” Accident Reconstruction Journal,
Vol. 5, No. 5, September/October 1993.

5. Craig, V.T., “In-Line and Offset Pole Impact Tests of Three Vehicles,” Accident Reconstruction Journal, Vol.
7, No. 3, May/June 1995.

6. Craig, V.T., “Speed Estimation in Head-on Vehicle Pole Impacts,” Accident Reconstruction Journal, Vol. 7,
No. 3, May/June 1995.

7. Craig, V.T., “Repeat Pole Impact Tests of Three More Automobiles,” Accident Reconstruction Journal, Vol.
7, No. 5, September/October 1995.

8. Craig, V.T., “Speed Estimation in Head-on Vehicle Pole Impacts - Update,” Accident Reconstruction Journal,
Vol. 7, No. 5, September/October 1995.

9. Croteau, Jeffrey, Benjamin Frank, Daniel Peterson, Cleve Bare, George Kyanka, “Timber Utility Pole
Fracture Mechanics Due to Non-Deformable and Deformable Moving Barrier Impacts,” SAE Int. J.
Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. 4(1):279-292, 2011, doi:10.4271/2011-01-0288.

10. Daily, J.G., Daily, J.S., Rich, A.S., “A Method for Vehicle-Wooden Utility Pole Impact Speed
Reconstruction,” Accident Reconstruction Journal, Vol. 19, No. 5, Sept/October, 2009.

11. Kent, Richard W., Charles E. Strother, “Wooden Pole Fracture Energy in Vehicle Impacts,” SAE Technical
Paper 980214, 1998, doi:10.4271/980214.

12. Rose, Nathan A., Neal Carter, Gray Beauchamp, “Post-Impact Dynamics for Vehicles with a High Yaw
Velocity,” SAE Technical Paper Number 2016-01-1470, 2016, doi:10.4271/2016-10-1470.

13. Varat, Michael S., Husher, Stein E., “Vehicle Crash Severity Assessment in Lateral Pole Impacts,” SAE
Technical Paper Number 1999-01-0100, 1999, doi:10.4271/1999-01-0100.
Author Contact Information

Nathan A. Rose
Director and Principal
Kineticorp, LLC
Office – (303) 733-1888
Mobile – (720) 839-1995
Email – nrose@kineticorp.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathanarose
beautiful_evidence

i Other energy dissipation mechanisms exist during a vehicle impact with a utility pole – such as energy being dissipated
through vibration of the pole or through localized fiber crushing [Kent, 1998]. In cases of full or partial pole fracture,
these additional sources of energy dissipation can reasonably be assumed to be captured in the total fracture energy for
the pole. In cases where the pole does not even partially fracture, the calculations will typically assume that the energy
loss from vibration and localized fiber crushing are negligible.
ii Kent and Strother also proposed a method for instances when the structural properties of the wood cannot be

determined. That portion of their study is not covered in this article.