Every attachment request on a distribution pole arrives with the same implied question: can this pole take one more thing? The answer is rarely obvious. A pole that looked adequate in 1987 may now carry three communication cables, a transformer, a streetlight bracket and a longer span than the original design assumed.
The calculation is only as good as the field data
A loading model needs pole class and species, embedment depth, the position and weight of every attachment, span lengths in both directions, line angle, and the condition of the wood. Most disputes about results turn out to be disputes about inputs. On the programmes we support, the largest single improvement in accuracy came from tightening the field data collection form, not from changing the analysis software.
Groundline strength is the quiet variable
Decay reduces effective section at the groundline where bending moment is highest. A visual inspection will not catch internal decay in a pole that looks sound from outside. Where a utility has a large population of older wood poles, sampling with a resistance drill and applying a strength reduction factor to the class is more defensible than assuming a nominal remaining capacity.
What the output should drive
A loading study that ends in a pass or fail list has done half its job. The useful output ranks the failures by severity and by cost of remediation, so that the utility can separate the poles that need replacement this season from the ones that need a guy wire or a transferred attachment. That ranking is what turns a compliance exercise into a capital planning input.
Practical points
Model the whole structure including the down guy geometry, not just the pole. Check the governing load case for your jurisdiction rather than defaulting to the heaviest. Keep a version history of the model so that the next attachment request starts from the current condition rather than from the original design. And record the assumptions with the result, because someone will question them in three years.