RCC Chimney - CICIND Commentary

CICIND
Commentaries for the
Model Code for

Concrete Chimneys
Part A: The Shell
Second Edition, Revision 1
August 2001
Copyright CICIND 2001

ISBN 1-902998-14-6
Office of The Secretary

CICIND, Preussenstrasse 11 40883 Ratingen, Germany
Tel: +49 (0)2102 896 840 Fax: +49 (0)2102 896 842 e-mail: [email protected]
www.cicind.org
Commentaries to the CICIND Model Code for Concrete Chimneys, Part A, The Shell
Contents
Page
Commentary No. 1 Safety Factors 1
Commentary No. 2 Material Law in the Ultimate Limit State 8
Commentary No. 3 Wind Load 11
Commentary No. 4 Moments of 2nd Order 18
Commentary No. 5 Openings and Point Loads 25
Commentary No. 6 Dimensioning Diagrams for Horizontal Cross-Sections 29
Commentary No. 7 Superposition of Effects from Temperature and Loads 40
Commentary No. 8 Seismic Actions and Capacity Design 52

Introduction
These Commentaries are largely derived from those published in April 1987 to accompany the first edition
of the “Model Code for Concrete Chimneys - Part A: The Shell” which was published in October 1984.
They have been enlarged and updated to reflect the changes in the Second Edition of the Code first
published in August 1998 and subsequently revised and reprinted in loose-leaf format in August 2001.
Advantage has been taken of the opportunity to include recommendations for Capacity Design in the
section on Seismic actions.
CICIND, Zurich, Switzerland
– Office of the Secretary –
CICIND, 14 The Chestnuts, Beechwood Park, Hemel Hempstead HP3 0DZ, England.
CICIND documents are presented to the best of the knowledge of its members as guides only. CICIND is
not, nor are any of its members, to be held responsible for any failure alleged or proved to be due to
adherence to recommendations, or acceptance of information, published by the association in a Model
Code or other publication or in any other way.
© Copyright by CICIND
CICIND Concrete Chimney Code - Commentary No. 1 page 1
Commentary No. 1
Failure Probability and Safety Factors
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Justification of target failure probability
2.1 Social criteria
2.2 Economic criteria
2.3 Importance classes
3 Choice of appropriate partial safety factors for the ultimate limit state
3.1 Definition of failure
3.2 Method for the determination of the failure probability
3.3 Calculation of the failure factor cu
3.4 Assumptions for the extreme-value distribution for wind
4 Results and justification of the CICIND partial safety factors
4.1 Inline wind - final state
4.2 Earthquake
4.3 Corbels
4.4 The construction state
4.5 Serviceability limit state
5 Summary
List of Literature
1 Introduction
The choice of load factors depends on the risk of failure that is considered acceptable. Consequently this
commentary falls naturally into two parts:
1. Choice of appropriate failure probability.
2. Estimation of the partial safety factors required to achieve the specified probability.
2 Justification of the target failure probability

The acceptable level of risk of failure should be assessed with regard to two criteria:
Social - the risk to human life as a consequence of collapse.
Economic - the consequential cost of failure or unserviceability.
2.1 Social criteria

1
CIRIA Report 63 published in 1977 gives the following formula for calculating the acceptable total lifetime
risk:
page 2 CICIND Concrete Chimney Code - Commentary No. 1
10 −4
Pft = K s nd (1)
nr
in which
nr is the average number of people in or near the structure during the period of risk
K s is a social criterion factor, given in Table 1 for various types of structure
Pft is the target probabilit y of failure of the structure due to any cause in its design life
n d is the design life of the structure in years
For an industrial chimney the types of failure which could endanger life are collapse of the shell or flue
support structure.
Table 1 Social criterion factors
Nature of structure Ks
Places of public assembly, dams 0.005
Domestic, office or trade and industry 0.05
Bridges 0.5
Towers, masts, offshore structures 5.0
In order to use equation 1 it is necessary to estimate nr. It is suggested [1,2] that allowance be made for
the degree of correlation between the loading leading to failure and the number of people likely to be close
to or on the structure. Since collapse is most likely to occur under extreme wind speeds, it may be
assumed that nobody will be in or near the chimney except through necessity. Thus the value of nr may
be assumed to lie in the range 0.1 to 10 with due regard to the average periods of occupation of the
vulnerable buildings, their proximity and the direction of the prevailing wind.
Assuming that nd = 50 and K s = 0.05 gives the values of Pf in Table 2
Table 2 Typical failure probabilities Pf for environmental risk

number
Environment of Pf
fatalities
-3
small steel chimney in 0.1 2⋅5⋅10
industrial area
-4
large power station or oil 1 2.5⋅10
refinery chimney
-5
large CHP in urban area 10 2.5⋅10
or hospital chimney
2.2 Economic criteria

Another consideration is the balance between initial cost and the economic consequences of failure. The
approach requires several assumptions, such as the cost of finance, the rate of inflation and the relation
between the cost of construction and the partial safety factors. Figure 1 shows a typical family of curves
relating the total cost to the failure probability p for various ratios g of total cost to initial cost. Ideally the
failure probability should be chosen to minimise the total cost. Because of the uncertainties inherent in the
-4
assumptions these curves are not to be taken literally, but they do indicate that a target of 10 for the
lifetime failure probability of most concrete chimneys is reasonable, and that it would be unwise to
increase it in view of the steep rise in total cost in the direction of decreasing load factor. For ‘normal’
3
structures, CEN recommends a ‘reliability index’ of 3.8, corresponding to a lifetime failure probability of
-5
7.10 , which is close enough.
20
annual cost
10
0
6 5 4 3 2 1
log p
total for g = 10
total for g = 30
total for g = 100
initial cost
Fig.1 Total Cost vs. Failure Probability
2.3 Importance classes

If the chimney is of great economic importance, for example the sole multiflue chimney serving a 4GW
power station, the consequential cost of failure may be so great that the total cost of collapse approaches
-5
100 times the initial cost. In this case the target probability should be reduced to 10 . For this reason
CICIND distinguishes between two Importance Classes as described in Table 3.
Table 3: Importance Classes for Concrete Chimneys

Class Description Target Pf
-4
1 normal chimneys 10
-5
2 chimneys of exceptional economic or social importance 10
It is suggested that the importance class be specified by the owner.
3 Choice of partial safety factors for the ultimate limit state
3.1 Definition of Failure

A chimney cross-section fails if the external forces Mw and Np due to actions such as wind and permanent
load are outside the range of those values Mu and Nu which the cross-section can withstand. Neither pair
of values is known exactly. At best their probability distributions can be estimated:
• Mw and Np depend on the probabilistic behaviour of the actions.
• Mu and Nu depend on the probabilistic behaviour of the properties of the materials and of the
dimensions.
The probability of failure is controlled by the partial safety factors. It will be shown that the factors given
below lead to the required probabilities for the ultimate limit state of failure due to inline wind.
Concrete γcu = 1.5
reinforcement γsu = 1.15
permanent load γPu = 1.0
inline wind, class 1 γWu = 1.6
inline wind, class 2 γWu = 1.8
3.2 Method for the determination of the failure probability

The principles involved are described in detail in the literature [4],[5]. For this commentary the method
used is based on the multivariate analysis of the 1986 edition of this Commentary with the exception of the
probability distribution for wind.
For the determination of the failure probability of a chimney cross-section, many random variables are
required. For the purpose of this commentary the six variables of Table 4 have been selected as random
variables whereas other influencing factors, such as ratio of reinforcement ρ and shell diameter d, have
been treated as deterministic values since their deviation is very small. For the calculation normalised
values from Table 4 are used.
Table 4: Random Variables for the determination of the failure probability of

chimney cross-sections
Random Characteristic Normalised

Influence Distribution Parameters
Values Values Values
Concrete mean fcm = 38.0 MPa
1 fc fck kc = fc/fck log-normal
strength s.d. Sc = 4.9 MPa
Steel mean fsm = 450 MPa
2 fs fsk ks = fs/fsk log-normal
strength s.d. Ss = 30.4 MPa
Wall mean ktm = 1.00
3 t tk kt = t/tk normal
thickness s.d. St = 0.03
Model kMo = mean kmod = 0.90
4 Mod Modk normal
factor Mod/Modk s.d. Smod = 0.061
Normal mean kNm = 1.00
5 N Nk kN = N/Nk normal
force s.d. SN = 0.043
Bending mode uMm = 400
FT1 for
6 moment M Mk kM = M/Mk 2
pressure (v ) dispersion 1/aM = 80
from wind
The following normalised cross-sectional forces are used in the calculations:

• random values
N ⋅ Mod
n= (2)
π ⋅ d ⋅ t ⋅ fc
M ⋅ Mod
m=
π ⋅ d2 ⋅ t ⋅ fc
(3)
• characteristic values
Nk ⋅ Modk
nk = (4)
π ⋅ d ⋅ tk ⋅ fck
Mk ⋅ Modk
mk = (5)
π ⋅ d2 ⋅ t ⋅ fck
The failure probability PF is given by equation 6

∞∞∞∞∞∞
PF = ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ pc ps pt pMo pN pM ⋅ cu ⋅ dfc dfs dt dMo dN dM (6)
000000
The "failure factor" cu which appears In this integral is determined as follows:

For each combination of fc, fs, t, Mod, N, and M the strains are determined for the condition of equilibrium.
If one of the strains at the edge of the cross-section exceeds the ultimate limit strain the factor cu =1:
otherwise cu = 0.
The determination of cu is the real task of the evaluation of the integral.
The integral (6) was evaluated by two independent methods:
1. As in the 1987 edition of this commentary, but with an increased number of intervals.
2. By a Monte Carlo method using a variety of pseudo-random number generators to calculate values of
the variables.
5
The results obtained by the two methods were in close agreement .
3.3 Calculation of the Failure Factor cu
Each combination of the parameters fc, fs, kt, kN and kMo gives a normalised failure moment mu which the
chimney can withstand. This moment is determined as follows:
The normalised ultimate normal force is calculated using the relation
nk ⋅ kN
nu = (7)
k t ⋅ kc
The corresponding normalised ultimate bending moment mu is calculated as a function of nu, fc and fs.
The random bending moment due to wind is calculated from the wind velocity by:
2
mk ⋅ kMo  v 
mw =   (8)
k t ⋅ k c  vk 
Using the values of mu and mw the failure factor cu is determined from:

cu = 1 for m w ≥ mu
(9)
cu = 0 for m w < mu
If the density distributions of the single parameters are known, the failure probability of chimney
cross-sections can now be determined according to equation (6).
3.4 Assumptions for the extreme-value distribution for wind

The distribution of extreme values of wind velocity is not Gaussian [6],[7]. We take the Gumbel formula for
the cumulative probability of wind pressure, which leads to the following expression for the cumulative
probability as a function of the velocity.
2
P1 (v) = exp (-exp(-a(v - u)) (10)
Following [7], we assume that the product a.u = 5, which is recommended for the wind climate of the UK
and may be regarded as typical for many other regions. Larger values of the product lead to lower
predicted failure probabilities and vice versa.
The characteristic wind velocity according to the Model Code is defined as the wind speed with a
probability of being exceeded of 0.02 in one year (50 year return period). As the design life is 50 years, the
50-year wind distribution P50 (v) must be used in the calculation of failure probability. This is derived from
P1(v) by the equation
50
P50(v) = (P1(v)) (11)
4 Results and Justification of the CICIND Safety Factors
4.1 Inline wind - final state

The integral (6) has been evaluated for a series of values of the normalised force nk. The corresponding
normalised moment mk is computed from nk on the basis of the CICIND Model Code. These two values nk
and mk then uniquely determine all the values needed for the integration. The result is shown in Table 5,
which shows that in the relevant range of eccentricities the values of failure probability are in the region of
-4 -5
10 for γw = 1.6 and 10 for γw = 1.8. This is the justification of the CICIND safety factors for the inline wind
load case.
Table 5: Failure probabilities for the chimney cross-section

nu 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
mu 0.026 0.049 0.069 0.087 0.099 0.106 0.105
6
P ⋅ 10 (γw = 1.6) 34 117 163 101 34 7 1
6
P ⋅ 10 (γw = 1.8) 2 11 17 9 2 0 0
4.2 Safety Factor for Earthquake

A similar analysis of the earthquake load case is not possible because the frequency distribution of the
extreme values is not known with sufficient accuracy.
It is considered that the proposed safety factor γEu = 1.4 is sufficient.
This value is related to the greatest earthquake which can be expected in the light of past observations.
4.3 Safety Factor for the Construction State

In the First Edition of this Code the construction state was given a separate wind load factor. In the
Second Edition this has been replaced by the CEN recommendation [7] to reduce the inline wind load to
80% of its 50-year value on account of the reduced period of exposure.
4.4 Safety Factor for Corbel Loading

The safety factor of γPu = 1.4 was adopted because of the great importance of corbels.
4.5 Safety Factor for the Serviceability Limit State

Interior installations must be able to stand the deflection of the shell without loss of serviceability.
A safety factor of γWs = 1.3 is recommended.
5 Summary
A multivariate analysis has been used to determine the failure probabilities of chimney cross-sections. The
random parameters are as follows:
• strength of concrete
• strength of steel
• wall thickness
• modelling factor (degree of accordance between the calculation model and the real structure)
• normal force
• wind moment
Reasonable probability distributions have been chosen for these parameters.
-4
The CICIND safety factors result in lifetime failure probabilities of around 10 for normal (class 1)
-5
chimneys and 10 for exceptionally important (class 2) chimneys.
List of Literature
1. Construction Industry Research and Information Association: ”Rationalisation of safety and

serviceability factors in structural codes” (CIRIA Report 63), July 1977
nd
2. Pinfold.G.M.: ”Tall Concrete Stacks: Cost Sensitivity and Optimisation” , Proc. 2 International
Chimney Symposium, Edinburgh 1976
3. CEN: ENV 1991-1,1994
4. Bottenbruch, H., Noakowski, P.: “Versagenswahrscheinlichkeit von turmartigen Bauwerken nach der
direkten Integrationsmethode unter Zugrundelegung von verschiedenen Normen"; Bauingenieur 62
(1987), pages 29 - 40.
5. Bierrum, N.R.: ”Failure Probability and Load Factors”, CICIND Report Vol.14 No.1, CICIND May 1998.
6. Cook, N.J.: “Towards Better Estimation of Extreme Winds” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 9(1982).
7. CEN: ENV 1991-2-4,1997.
Commentary No. 2
Material Law in the Ultimate Limit State
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Ultimate Limit State of Concrete
3 Ultimate Limit State of Reinforcement
List of Literature
1 Introduction
The following forces act on the horizontal cross-sections of a chimney:
• permanent global normal forces N from dead load
• short-term global bending moments M from wind
• long-term local bending moments ∆M from temperature differences and from corbel loading.
The effect of repeated loads due to oscillation is of little significance in concrete chimneys [3] and has not
been taken into account.
Generally, these three load cases appear together. The behaviour of the reinforced concrete, however,
varies considerably when the two limiting load cases are considered:
• permanent loading from dead load alone
N from dead load, M = 0, e = M/N = 0
and
• a short-term transient from wind load alone
N = 0, M from wind, e = M/N = ∞
CEN [1] considers for all load cases the behaviour of the concrete under permanent loading only. The
1984 edition of the CICIND Model Code took into account the effect of duration of the load on concrete
behaviour.
2 Ultimate Limit State of Concrete

The 1984 edition was based on a material law which assumed the concrete stress-strain relationship to be
parabolic under long-term loading and linear under short-term loading. Consequently the concrete strain
at failure was limited to about 0.001. The effect on the design strength can be seen in Figures 1 and 2,
which have been calculated with the same material factors for both old and new laws.
Fig. 1 - Comparison of design strengths for the old and new material laws - no openings
Fig.2 - Comparison of design strengths for the old and new material laws - two opposed openings
In these diagrams the balance points, at which both reinforcement and concrete strains reach their limiting
values, are marked by small squares. Up to the balance points the two laws give similar results; beyond
them the behaviour is very different.
This change in the predicted behaviour requires justification. Accordingly the calculation method of
Commentary 1 was applied to this problem. The CEN stress-strain law was assumed with restrictions on
the maximum strain but ignoring other short-term effects. To summarise the results:-
1. Reducing the material factor for concrete from 1.5 to 1.2 has little effect on the highest failure rate in
the range considered. This is because the large factor makes concrete failure extremely unlikely.
2. Reducing the maximum concrete strain to 0.0018 also has little effect on the highest failure rate.
The main reason for the difference in the ultimate moments predicted by the two laws is that under the
1984 law the tensile reinforcement is far from fully utilised when the concrete strain reaches the limiting
value.
The conclusion is that the material law of the 1984 code represents an unwarranted oversimplification of
the actual short-term behaviour of concrete.
3 Ultimate Limit State of Reinforcement

The behaviour of steel reinforcement does not depend on short-term or long-term load in the periods of
oscillation which are valid for chimneys. This justifies the idealised material law given in section 6.2.6 of
the Model Code.
The ultimate limit strain εsu = 0.01 usually applied in reinforced concrete constructions can be used for
chimneys since it was proved in [3] that the fracture is not caused by repeated oscillation loading due to
wind but by a single wind gust.
List of Literature
1. Comite Euro-lnternational du Beton: CEB/FIP international Recommendations for the Design and
Construction of Concrete Structures. Principles and Recommendations.", 1978
2. Deutsches Institut für Normung: DIN 1056, "Solid Construction, Freestanding Stacks; Calculation
and Design", October 1984.
3. Schueller, G.l. & Bucher C.G.: "On the Failure Mechanisms of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys";
CICIND Report vol.13no.2,September 1997.
4. Grasser, E.: "Darstellung und kritische Analyse der Grundlagen für eine wirklichkeitsnahe
Bemessung von Stahlbetonquerschnitten bei einachsigen Spannungszustanden",
Promotionsschrift, TU Munchen, 1968.
5. Hjorth, Olaf: "Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Festigkeiten und des Verbundverhaltens von Stahl und
Beton bei hohen Beanspruchungsgeschwindigkeiten"; Dissertationsschrift, TU Braunschweig,1975.
6. Der Bundesminister für Raumordung, Bauwesen und Stadtebau: Bau- und Wohnforschung,
Forschungsbericht zum Thema “Verhalten von Beton bei sehr kurzer Belastungsgeschichte"
(T 692).
7. Forschungskolloquium "Stoßartige Belastung von Stahlbetonbauteilen", Universität Dortmund,19.
Sept. 1980.
8. Noakowski, R: "The Behaviour of the Compressed Zone of Concrete Industrial Chimneys", 4th
International Symposium on Industrial Chimneys, The Hague, May 1981.
Commentary No. 3
Wind Load
Table of Contents
1 Wind Speed
1.1 Basic Wind Speed
1.2 Wind Maps
1.3 Influence of Topography
1.4 Interference objects
2 The Gust Factor and the Peak Factor
3 Static Equivalent of the Wind Load due to Gusts
4 Vortex Shedding
List of Literature
1 Wind Speed
The hourly mean wind speed has been chosen as the basis for the wind load. After estimation of the
turbulence intensity the wind load is calculated by the “gust factor" method.
1.1 Basic Wind Speed

The basic wind speed used in deriving wind loads is the wind speed measured at 10 m above ground at
the chimney location and averaged over one hour which has a probability of being exceeded of 0.02 in any
one year. Values of the basic wind speed valid for a given location should be obtained from meteorological
stations. When wind speeds have been measured over periods shorter than 50 years the correction factor
given in Figure 1 may be used to extrapolate the basic wind speed.
Figure 1 - Ratio between values of mean wind speed Figure 2 - Ratio between wind speeds vt with
vj with a return period of j years and the Basic Wind averaging time t and the hourly Basic Wind Speed vb
Speed vb with a return period of 50 years as a function of averaging time
If the averaging time is less than one hour, the hourly mean may be determined using Figure 2. In this
figure the ratio between the hourly mean and shorter averaging periods of the wind speed is given for
various types of terrain.
1.2 Wind maps

In case results of wind speed measurements are not available, an indication of the basic wind speed is
given in the Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 for Europe, North America, Asia and Australia.
The values indicated for Europe must be divided by 1.05 to give the mean hourly wind speed vb.
1.3 The Influence of the Topography

Section 7.2.2.2 of the Model Code requires the determination of a topographical factor kt in case of non-
flat country for the determination of the design wind speed. For certain topographical situations, a method
for the determination of kt is given in [4]. An approximation of the diagrams in [4] is described in the
following. The method is valid for topographical situations which can be adequately described by three
values U, ψU and ψD as in Figure 7.
The factor kt is obtained by formula (1)
( . ∗ ψ E ∗ (1 − x UE − z UE )
k t = 1 + 12 ) if ψ D ≥ 0.05
(1)
k t = (1 + 12
. ∗ ψ E ∗ (1 − x 4UE − z UE )) if ψ D < 0.05
where
ψU if ψ U ≤ 0.3
ψE =
0.3 if ψ U > 0.3
U if ψ U ≤ 0.3
UE =
3.3∗ h if ψ U > 0.3
h height of hill or escarpment, see Figure 7

U horizontal length of upwind slope
x distance of chimney from crest
z height of considered position in chimney above ground.
If equation (1) gives a value kt < 1, then kt = 1.
1.4 Interfering Objects

The determination of the influence of interfering objects on the wind speed is complicated and may
necessitate wind tunnel tests. In some cases the interference factor ki may be estimated as follows:
a) if the height of the interfering object is less than half the chimney height, take ki = 1
b) if the interfering object is an almost cylindrical structure,
. − (0.15 9 d)∗ a
k i = 125 for 6 d < a ≤ 15d
(2)
k i = 10
. for a > 15 d
where
a distance of chimney down-wind from the interfering object (centre to centre)
d diameter of the interfering object
c) if a < 6d the factor ki should be determined by wind tunnel testing or equivalent means.
2 The Gust Factor and the Peak Factor

The gust factor is taken from Davenport [5], and the peak factor g is taken from Davenport [6].
The turbulence intensity i and the energy density spectrum E are taken from ESDU [7] for a surface
roughness parameter zO = 0.06 m.
3 The Static Equivalent of the Wind Load due to Gusts

Under the CICIND code the (static equivalent) wind load due to gusts varies linearly with the height. This
causes an increase of the bending moment at high levels in the chimney compared with the normal
gust-loading method. As a result the CICIND method gives a better approximation for the influence of the
turbulence resulting from the higher modes of oscillation. This will give slightly higher moments at the
chimney top whereas the values at chimney bottom are identical to those resulting from the standard
procedure.
4 Vortex Shedding
In the first edition of this Commentary it was suggested that investigation of vortex shedding is not
necessary if the following condition is fulfilled at all levels:
G V ≥ 2.0 KN / m 3 (3)
where
G weight of chimney above considered level
V corresponding volume of chimney.
2 mδ
The condition (3) corresponds to Scruton Number Sc = ≥ 15
ρd 2
for damping logarithmic decrement of 0.05
To date vortex shedding of an amplitude which leads to unacceptable stress levels has not been observed
in reinforced concrete chimneys which were correctly designed for wind loading in accordance with
existing codes. The condition (3) is taken from observations mostly of steel chimneys and from wind
tunnel tests. Condition (3) is thus not fully justifiable with the present knowledge of this phenomenon. To
date no entirely satisfactory way of calculating across-wind response has been published. For the present
the method of ACI 307-95 is recommended.
List of Literature
1. European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (E.C.C.S.): "Recommendations for the
Calculation of Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures", September 1978.
2. Japan Association for Wind Engineering: Wind Resistant Design Regulations - A World List"; G.B.
Fukyu - Kai, Tokyo, 1975.
3. Japan Association for Wind Engineering: Wind Resistant Design Regulations - A World List
Supplement 1982"; G.B. Fukyu - Kai, Tokyo,1982.
4. Building Research Establishment Digest, No. 283: "Assessment on Wind Speed over Topography";
Building Research Establishment, Garston, Watford.
5. Davenport, A.G.: Note on the Distribution of the largest Value of a Random Function; Proc. I.C.E.,
Vol. 28, June 1964.
6. Davenport, A.G.: Gust Loading Factors; J. Struct. Div., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 93, ST3. June 1967.
7. Engineering Sciences Data Unit: ESDU Report 74031; London.
Figure 3 – Basic wind speeds vb in m/s for Europe according to [1] (10m above ground, open
country, 50 years return period)
NB – The values shown must be divided by 1.05 to obtain the mean hourly wind speed
Figure 4 – Basic wind speeds vb in m/s for USA according to [2] (10m above ground, open country,
50 years return period). Caution in the use of wind speed contours in the mountainous
regions of Alaska is advised.
Figure 5 – Basic wind speeds vb in m/s for Asia (10m above ground, open country, 50 years
return period, hourly mean).
Figure 6 – Basic wind speeds vb in m/s for Australia according to [3] (10m above ground, open
country, 50 years return period, hourly mean).
Notes:
Tropical cyclone-prone areas, shown hatched, are up to 50km inland from the coast north of Latitude 27°.
Within the topical cyclone-prone areas all design velocities shall be multiplied by 1.15.
Within the tropical cyclone-prone areas a minimum design velocity of 34m/s shall be used.
Figure 7 – Hill parameters for determining kt

Commentary No. 4
Moments of 2nd Order
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Compression Zone
3 Tension Zone
4 Exact Determination of the Moments of 2nd Order
5 Approximation for the Determination of the Moments of 2nd Order
6 Verification of the Approximation
List of Literature
1 Introduction
Chimney deflections are calculated by twice integrating the curvatures along the chimney height. Here - as
opposed to proofs of load carrying capacity - the average material properties are the determining factors.
The actual stiffness of the tension zone of the shell is higher than that calculated assuming cracked
sections everywhere. This “tension stiffening effect" results from the bond between concrete and
reinforcement.
Both the importance of the material properties with respect to deformations and the decrease of the
strains in the tension zone as a consequence of the tension stiffening effect are considered in the
CEB-regulations [1] and in the German Chimney Code DIN 1056 [2].
In the following, the ClCIND regulations and their application are described.
CICIND adopts the following safety factors:
- safety factors for materials for use in the calculation of deformations
• concrete γcu = 1.20
• steel γsu = 1.15
- safety factors for loading
• permanent loads γP = 1.00
• wind γW = 1.60
2 Compression Zone
The deformation behaviour in the concrete compression zone is determined by the average modulus of
elasticity of the concrete Ec.
The value for the modulus of elasticity of concrete is determined by the following CEB-equation [1] for the
short-term behaviour.
0.33
Ec = 9500(fck + 8) (1)
(All values of fc, fs, Ec, Es are in MPa in this Commentary.)
The tensile strength of the concrete is also taken from the CEB-regulations [1]:
0.66
fct = 0.3(fck ) (2)
The resulting values of Ec and fct are given in Table 1. For the purpose of computing deformations these
values should be divided by the safety factor γcu = 1.2
Table1: Material Properties of Concrete for the Calculation of Deformation

Concrete Modulus of Elasticity Ec Tensile Strength fct
Quality MPa MPa
C25 30000 2.6
C30 31500 2.9
C35 33000 3.2
C40 34000 3.5
C45 35000 3.8
C50 36000 4.1
3 Tension Zone
The stress-strain relationship shown in Figure 1 is based on [3]. This tension stiffening law is greatly
simplified compared with the law given in [3], but is always on the safe side with respect to the steel
stresses.
Figure 1 : Explanation of the Tension Stiffening Effect
In the following, a fictitious bar in the tension zone of a circular chimney cross-section is considered. The
dotted line in Figure 1 is the "pure state II" condition which would arise if there were no tension stiffening
effect. The solid line represents the mean stress-strain behaviour of the reinforcement lying in this bar.
The tension stiffening effect causes a translation of the “pure state-ll-line" towards the σs-axis by the
amount ∆εs . The magnitude ∆εs of the tension stiffening effect is determined from the following
considerations:
- The steel stress just after cracking is:
fct II II f
∗ A c = σ s ∗ A s → σ s = ct (3)
γ cu ρ∗ γ cu
- The relation between ∆εs and the steel strain εs at the crack (see Figure 1) is:
∆ε = 0.5∗ ε s II (4)
where
II 0.5∗ fct
εs =
Es ∗ ρ∗ γ cu
The simplified tension stiffening law is now constructed as follows:

6
• The first part is a straight line with slope 10 MPa up to the point where the tensile concrete strength is
less than the concrete tensile stress and crack formation begins.
• From this point up to yield the value ∆εs describes the tension stiffening effect.
• After yielding the steel stress is constant.
Figure 2 shows the tension stiffening law prepared for practical use.
Figure 2 : Tension Stiffening Law

4 Exact Determination of the Moments of 2nd Order

For the determination of the moments of 2nd order, the mean strains εc and εt at the compressed and the
tensioned edge of the cross-section are needed. Figure 3 shows a procedure to calculate these strains.
The calculations are based on the concrete modulus Ec fron equation (1), the tension stiffening law of
Figure 2 and the following conditions of equilibrium
n
 πd πd 
N= ∑  σ
1
c
n
t + σs tρ
n 
(5)
n
 πd πd  d
M= ∑1
 σc
 n
t + σs tρ cos α
n 2
Figure 3 : Numerical procedure for the determination of the strains
Figure 4 illustrates the procedure by which the methodology of section 3 is applied to a complete
structure.
nd
Figure 4 : Procedure for the exact determination of deflections and moment of 2 order M2
according to Ref. 3
The following section describes this procedure.

The rotation Φ is calculated by numerical integration of the curvature k. Further integration of the rotation
Φ gives the deflection δ. The dead load g acting in the deflected position causes moments of 2nd order
M2.
In the next step of the iteration, the procedure is repeated with these moments added to the moments due
to the ultimate limit state wind. If the design is viable the sequence converges, usually after 4 or 5
iterations.
The overall moment is the sum of the wind moment and the corresponding 2nd order moments. This
value is to be used with the dimensioning diagrams in Commentary No. 6.
5 Approximation Method for the Determination of the Moments of 2nd Order
Moments of 2nd order can be determined approximately by the equation (8.9) in section 8.2.4.4 of the
Model Code.
This approximation is developed following [4] & [5].
It is based on the assumption that the local load carrying capacity of the cross-sections is fully utilised and
takes account of the tension stiffening effect.
The approximation method is valid for any combination of the following variables:
• concrete quality
• steel quality
• dimensions: height, diameter, shape and ratio of reinforcement of the shell
• loading: weight of the lining and wind.
6 Verification of the Approximation

The approximation has been checked for 60 chimneys for which the moments of 2nd order had been
determined using the exact method described in section 4. The 60 chimneys were selected by combining
the following parameters:
Concrete quality fck = 20, 25, 30,35, 40 MPa
Steel quality fsk = 300, 400, 500 MPa
Dimensions:
height h = 100, 200, 300 m
slenderness h/db = 15.0, 17.5, 20.0
ratio of conicity db/dt = 1.66, 2.0
waist fitting factor w = 2.0, 3.0
(w is an exponent which defines the shape of the external profile of the chimney)
ratio of reinforcement ρ = 0.0035 to 0.006
Loading:
wind velocity Vb = 16 m/s to 30 m/s
thickness of liner tL = 0.11 m
thickness of platforms tPL = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 m
A suitable combination of these parameters covers most existing chimney types.

Let k be the ratio of the exact moment of 2nd order to the approximate moment of 2nd order:
M2 exact
k= (6)
M2 approx
The value k according to (6) has been computed for the 60 chimneys mentioned above, for 5
cross-sections in every chimney, altogether 300 values. Figure 5 shows the result and proves that the
approximation is adequate since:
a) k is less than 1 in most cases
b) the majority of the cases are overestimated by less than 35 %.
The very few cases where k is larger than 1, i.e. where the approximation underestimates reality, can be
tolerated for the following reasons:
a) CICIND uses a probabilistic safety concept. The increase of the failure probability for the few cases
which underestimate reality is offset by the many cases which overestimate reality.
b) Moments of second order are normally in the range of 10 % to 20 % of the wind moment in ultimate
limit state. An error in the moments of 2nd order of 35 % therefore represents an error of 5 % in the
ultimate limit state moment.
nd nd
Figure 5 : Occurrence density of ratios of exact moment of 2 order to approximate moment of 2 order
for 60m representative chimneys with 5 cross-sections per chimney
List of Literature
1. Comité Euro-lnternational du Beton: "CEB/FIP International Recommendations for the Design and
Construction of Concrete Structures. Principles and Recommendations."; 1978.
2. Deutsches Institut fur Normung: DIN 1056, "Solid Construction, Freestanding Stacks; Calculation
and Design"; October 1984.
3. Noakowski, P., Kupfer, H.: "Stiffening Effect of Concrete in the Tension Area of Tower Structures";
4th International Symposium on Industrial Chimneys, The Hague, May 1981.
4. Hees, G., Emrich, E, Zander, H.: "Untersuchungen zum Tragverhalten von
Stahlbetonschornsteinen auf der Grundlage des Entwurfs zur DIN 1056"; Teil A,
Forschungsvorhaben, Institut fur Bautechnik IV/1532/74, August 1982.
5. Noakowski, P.: "Simplified Determination of the Moments of Second Order" in Industrial Chimneys";
4th International Symposium on Industrial Chimneys, The Hague, May 1981.
Commentary No. 5
Openings and Point Loads
Table of Contents
1 General
2 Virtual Openings
3 Horizontal Reinforcement
4 Vertical Reinforcement
5 Local Moments from Point Loads on Corbels
List of Literature
1 General
Stresses and strains are concentrated at corners of openings. This is illustrated by the results of
calculations on plates as published by G. N. Savin [1] (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 - Stresses and strains around openings according to Savin [1]

2 Virtual Openings
At a position 1.25b above the opening the stresses are not much below the stresses in the undisturbed
area. This is the reason for the choice of size of a virtual opening shown in the following figure.
Figure 2 - Relation of real opening (solid line) to virtual opening (dashed line)
The requirement in respect of the distance between two openings:

a ≥ 0.25(b1 + b2 )
can be derived from Figure 1.
3 Horizontal Reinforcement
The total tensile force in the horizontal direction above and below an opening depends on the magnitude
of the vertical stresses due to the normal force and the bending moment.
The tensile force is:
Ft = 0.1b t ( σ c + ρv σ s ) (1)
where:
b clear width of the opening
t wall thickness
σc vertical concrete stress in the undisturbed shell
σs vertical steel stress in the undisturbed shell
ρv ratio of vertical reinforcement
In the shell above and below an opening a bending moment m occurs acting to produce tension on the
inside of the vertical sections at the middle of the openings:
t
m = 0.002 b3 ( σ c + ρv σ s ) (2)
d
where d mean diameter of the shell
4 Vertical Reinforcement
In the strength calculations, using an opening with a fictitiously large width of 1.1b leads to some extra
safety. The total strain along the vertical line at the side of the opening must be equal to the total strain in
the vertical direction along a parallel line some distance away. In the line along the side, there must be
areas with reduced strains above and below the opening as high strains occur at the corners of the
opening. In chimneys designed in accordance with the Model Code the compressive stresses due to the
local strains in the corners are approximately 0.85 fck and the strains will be > 0.002. The large strains
make the reinforcement very effective. The region where the strains exceed 0.002 (plastic state) can be
seen in Figure 3. Extra vertical reinforcement amounting to 0.5 % of the area of this region must be
added in a strip with length 0.5b and thickness t. This reinforcement must extend over a height equal to b
plus a lap length at each corner.
a) considered model
hole
contour
λ=0.836 λ=0.764 λ=0.678 λ=0.604 λ=0.5
c) area with stresses above the yield stress

Point A in figures a) and b)
b) stress-strain relationship
Figure 3 – Material plastification next to openings according to [1]
5 Local Moments from Point Loads on Corbels

The determination of moments produced from point loads in a shell is very complex. Analytical methods
are not available. Measurements have been carried out (see [2]) which lead to the formulae (8.17 and
8.18) in the Model Code.
List of Literature
1. Savin, G. N.: Stress Concentrations around Holes", Pergamon Press, Oxford, London, New York,
Paris, 1961.
2. Tooth,A. S., Kenedi, R. M.: The Influence Line Technique of Shell Analysis", International
Colloquium of Simplified Calculation Method, Brussels, 1961.
Commentary No 6
Dimensioning Diagrams for Horizontal Cross Sections
Table of Contents
1 Description of the Dimensioning Diagrams

2 Use of the Dimensioning Diagrams
2.1 General
2.2 Dimensioning with Respect to the Ratio of Reinforcement
2.3 Dimensioning with Respect to the Wall Thickness
3 Dimensioning Examples
1 Description of the Dimensioning Diagrams

The 13 following dimensioning diagrams serve for the determination of
• the required wall thickness t and
• the required ratio of reinforcement ρ
in the horizontal cross-sections of the chimney shell.
For dimensioning the following initial data are needed:
• Material properties
characteristic steel strength fsk
characteristic concrete strength fck
• Dimensions
shaft diameter d (at wall centre)
size of openings α (degrees) and number of openings (1 or 2)
• Loading for the ultimate limit state
permanent load Nu
total bending moment Mu = γw∗Mw + M2
where:
Mw bending moment from wind
M2 bending moment from deflection
The dimensioning diagrams are valid for fsk = 400 MPa and for all fck
The diagrams are numbered according to the following key:

Diagram
Openings
Figure Validity
Nxα
No
1 0 full cross sections
2 1 x 10°
3 1 x 20°
4 1 x 30°
5 1 x 40° cross sections with one opening
6 1 x 50°
7 1 x 60°
8 2 x 10°
9 2 x 20°
10 2 x 30°
11 2 x 40° cross sections with two equal opposed openings
12 2 x 50°
13 2 x 60°
Note: the angle α is that subtended by the actual opening, not the virtual opening of width 1.1b
The diagrams 1 to 13 are similar to the standard dimensioning diagrams for reinforced concrete cross-
sections.
2 Use of the Dimensioning Diagrams
2.1 General
The cross-sectional forces in the dimensioning diagrams
nu normalised normal force
mu normalised bending moment
are limit state values.
2.2 Dimensioning with Respect to the Ratio of Reinforcement

The dimensioning with respect to the ratio of reinforcement is as follows:
a) The normalised cross-sectional forces nu and mu are computed from the values d, t, fck, Nu and Mu as
shown in the diagrams.
b) The required value ρ∗fsk/fck is read from the appropriate diagram, and from this the actual ratio of
reinforcement ρ is computed.
2.3 Dimensioning with Respect to the Wall Thickness

For the determination of the required wall thickness the following procedure can be used:
a) The eccentricity η is found from Nu, Mu and d:
Mu
η= (1)
Nu ∗ d
b) The straight line mu = nu ∗ η is drawn
c) The intersection of this straight line with the interaction curve for the chosen value of ρ gives the actual
value for nu
d) The wall thickness is given by

t = Nu ( π∗ d∗ fck ∗ n u ) (2)
3 Dimensioning Examples
Example 1: Dimensioning with Respect to the Ratio of Reinforcement p

given: fsk = 400 MPa
fck = 30 MPa
d = 20 m
t = 0.5 m
2 x (α = 40°)
Nu = 94.2 MN
Mu = γw Mw + M2 = 1168.7 MNm
wanted: ρ
Dimensioning :
The normalised cross-sectional forces are:
nu = 94.2 / ( π ∗ 20 ∗ 0.5 ∗ 30) = 0.100
2
mu = 1168.7 / ( π ∗ 20 ∗ 0.5 ∗ 30) = 0.062
From diagram 11 read that
ρ ∗ fsk/fck = 0.100
Therefore
ρ = 0.100 ∗ 30/400 = 0.75 %
Example 2: Dimensioning with Respect to the Wall Thickness t

given: fsk = 400 MPa
fck = 30 MPa
d = 15 m
p = 0.75 %
α =0
N = 44.80 MN
Mu = γw Mw + M2 = 672.0 MNm
wanted: t
Dimensioning:
The normalised eccentricity is:
η = Mu / (Nu d) = 672.0 / (44.8∗15) = 10
.
The normalised ratio of reinforcement amounts to

ρ∗ fsk / fck = 0.0075∗400 / 30 = 0.1
From diagram 1 at the intersection of η and ρ read that

nu = 0.062
therefore
t = 44.80 / ( π∗15.0∗0.062∗30.0) = 0.51 m
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd2 tfck
Fig. 1: Dimensioning Diagram for the Ratio of Reinforcement ρ and the wall thickness t of horizontal cross-
sections with no openings
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd 2 tfck
Fig. 2: Dimensioning Diagram for the Ratio of Reinforcement ρ and the wall thickness t of horizontal cross-sections with one
opening of α = 10°
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd2 tfck
sections with one opening of α = 20°
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd2 tfck
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd2 tfck
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd 2 tfck
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd2 tfck
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd2 tfck
sections with two opposed openings of α = 10°
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd 2 tfck
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd2 tfck
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd 2 tfck
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd 2 tfck
Nu fsk = 400 MPa

− nu = −
πdtfck for all fck
Mu
mu =
πd 2 tfck
Commentary No. 7
Superposition of Effects from Thermal and Other Actions
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Computation Model
3 Cases for Design
4 Determination of the Bending Moments
4.1 Fundamental Principles
4.2 Calculation Method
4.2.1 Range 0 (uncracked model bar)
4.2.2 Range 1 (model bar with single cracks)
4.2.3 Range 2 (model bar strongly cracked)
5 Ultimate Limit State
6 Serviceability Limit State
7 Calculation of Crack Width
8 Design Procedure
8.1 Horizontal sections
8.2 Vertical sections
9 Calculation Example
List of Literature
1 Introduction
The chimney shell is subjected to thermal effects arising from two sources of heat:
• flue gases inside the chimney
• solar radiation (insolation).
The heat transfer across the wall leads to a temperature gradient. Because of the shell geometry the
changes of curvature of the shell due to temperature difference are completely constrained in both
directions. As a result both horizontal and vertical bending moments arise. In general these act together
with bending moments and normal forces due to other loading. The magnitude of the thermal moment
depends on the actual stiffness of the section. This stiffness depends on the properties of the
cross-section and of the type and magnitude of the loading.
2 Computation Model
For the analysis we use as models horizontal and vertical bars which are imagined to be cut out of the
chimney shell. The analysis considers the behaviour under short-term loading such as that due to
insolation or furnace start-up. If the temperature gradient is sustained shrinkage and creep will combine
to reduce the thermal stresses almost to zero within a few days. When the heat source is shut down the
thermal stresses may be completely reversed. For this reason it is recommended that equal horizontal
reinforcement is provided on each face of the shell even if the proportions are such that the stresses
caused by the wind ovalling moment are negligible.
3 Cases for Design

Figure 1 shows those cases of thermal loading to be considered.
Case 1: horizontal bar
Case 2: vertical bar from the tension zone
Case 3: vertical bar from the neutral axis
Case 4: vertical bar from the compression zone
Figure 1 : Bars taken out of the chimney shell to be designed for load and constraint due to temperature
Case 1: Generally, bending moments from temperature MT and bending moments from wind MW act on
the horizontal bars from the shell. The circumferential reinforcement has to be designed for the
simultaneous action of both bending moments.
Case 2: In the model of a vertical bar within the tension zone of the shell, the following actions may
arise:
• MT bending moment due to temperature difference
• Mc bending moment due to the load on a corbel
• Nσ tensile force due to permanent load and wind acting on the shell
• Nc axial force due to the load on a corbel.
The actions Nσ and NC are combined into a single normal force N.

Case 3: At the neutral axis; same actions as case 2 except that N = 0.
Case 4: This represents a bar from the compressed zone; same actions as before, but N is negative.
The four cases described above can be generalised to one bar stressed by any normal force N from load
and by two bending moments ML and MT. The bending moment ML is due to load and the bending
moment MT is due to thermal effects.
4 Calculation of the Bending Moment due to Temperature
4.1 Fundamental Principles

The bending moments MT due to temperature depend on the stiffness.
The calculation follows the principles shown in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 3 shows the following curvatures
of the bar:
l
• k curvature in the region between cracks
ll
• k curvature at the crack
m
• k mean curvature
ll m
• ∆k = k - k measure of the tension stiffening effect.
The values marked by the subscript 1 refer to the situation immediately after the formation of the cracks.
Figure 2 : Illustration of the necessary proofs for Figure 3 : Curvature of the considered bar
a model bar "cut out" of the chimney shell belonging to three ranges of crack formation
Figure 4 shows the stiffness behaviour of the model bar.

The following three ranges can be seen in Figure 4:
• Range O: MT+ ML< M1
No cracks occur.
• Range 1: MT+ ML= M1
In this range the cracks are isolated and the total bending moment from load ML and temperature MT
is equal to the crack bending moment M1. The reason for this behaviour is that with each increase of
∆T for which the limiting value M1 is reached a new single crack arises, which decreases the stiffness.
The steel stress is reduced by the bond of concrete and steel between cracks. This induces tensile
stresses in the concrete, eventually producing another crack.
• Range 2: MT + ML > M1
This range begins when the regions of disturbance from adjacent cracks touch each other.
If now the moment is further increased, the steel stress will also increase, but the reduction of steel
stress between cracks due to the transfer of forces from steel to concrete remains constant.
Consequently the line for range 2 is parallel to the “pure state ll" line.
Figure 4 : Moment curvature relation of the considered bar divided into three ranges of crack formation
4.2 Calculation Method
4.2.1 Range O (uncracked model bar)

In this range the determination of the bending moment from temperature follows the simple relation
α T ∆TE cm lI
MT = (1)
t
where
αT coefficient of thermal expansion

∆T temperature difference across the shell
Ecm mean modulus of elasticity of concrete
I nd
I 2 moment of area, state 1
t wall thickness
4.2.2 Range 1 (model bar with single cracks)

In this range the bending moment from temperature is given by the following equation
MT = M1 - ML (2)
The crack moment M1 is given by
 N
M1 = W 1  f ct − 1  (3)
 A 
where
N normal force
ML moment from load
fct tensile strength of concrete (MPa)
0.66 2.6 + 24 t
fct = 0.45(0.85 − 0.20 t)(fck + 8) (4)
10
. + 40 t
fck characteristic concrete strength (MPa)
t wall thickness (m)
I
A area of cross-section, state 1
I
W section modulus, state 1
4.2.3 Range 2 (model bar strongly cracked)

The two following equations are used for the determination of the bending moment from temperature:
• equilibrium condition
α T ∆TEcm Im
= M − ML (5)
t
m nd
where l is the mean 2 moment of area.
• compatibility condition
M M 0.5M1
m
= ll
− (6)
E cm l E cm l E cm lll
m
The total bending moment M and the mean 2nd moment of area I can be determined by these two
equations.
ll
The values of Ecm and l are calculated as follows:
a) Ecm is the mean secant modulus of the stress-strain relationship of concrete according to the parabolic
behaviour of concrete.
Ecm = 850(1 + 250 εN ) (fck + 8) (7)
where εN is the strain from the normal force.

ll ll
b) The 2nd moment of area l and the section modulus W are calculated from the following equations:
1 3
III = x + Atx2 − 2Bt 2 x + Ct3 (8)
3
WII = III ( t − x − t1) (9)
where
 B 
x = At 1 + 2 2 − 1 (height of compression zone)
 A 
A= n(ρ1 + ρ2)
B= n(k1ρ1 + k2ρ2)
2 2
C= n(k1 ρ1 + k2 ρ2)
k1 = (t – t1) / t
k2 = t1 / t
n= Es / Ecm
r1 = ratio of reinforcement in the tension zone
r2 = ratio of reinforcement in the compression zone
t1 = concrete cover to the reinforcement axis
ll
The method for the determination of l described above is strictly valid only for a state of pure bending.
M
Nevertheless, it can be used for eccentricities η = >1
Nt
5 Ultimate Limit State

The two types of loading causing bending moments ML and MT give rise to fundamentally different
behaviour in the ultimate limit state. As this is approached the moment ML remains constant, whereas the
moment MT decreases. The effect can be seen most clearly by considering case 2 in regions where the
moment ML is zero. Initially the strain difference caused by the thermal gradient gives rise to unequal
stresses in the inside and outside reinforcement, but when the reinforcement yields under increasing wind
load the stresses in the two layers are both equal to the yield stress. In the ultimate limit state the
reinforcement strains become so large that there is no concrete compressive stress and MT falls to zero.
A similar argument can be applied to case 4, where consideration of the material law for concrete (Model
Code fig. 6.1) shows that MT falls to zero as the ultimate limit state is approached provided that the strain
difference between the two faces is less than (-εcu - 0.002). Given the coefficient of thermal expansion αT
-5
= 10 and -εcu = 0.003 this condition is not reached until ∆T = 100K.
These considerations lead to the conclusion that for the ultimate limit state the temperature difference can
be allowed for by reducing the strain at which the concrete is deemed to fail by 0.5 αT∆T.
6 Serviceability Limit State

Yield of the reinforcement caused by tension in the serviceability limit state must be prevented as it will
result in wide cracks which do not close when the load is reduced.
For vertical sections this requires that
M < My
where
M moment due to the characteristic wind and temperature difference
My moment at which the tensile reinforcement yields.
In the case of horizontal sections this condition may be ignored because of the high ultimate wind load
factor and the creep caused by the permanent load.
7 Calculation of Crack Width

The width of vertical cracks is determined by following the principles shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 : Relations for the determination of the crack width
The chain of relations shown in Figure 5 is as follows:

a) The sum of the bond stresses τ gives the steel stress σs at the crack.
b) The steel stress σs divided by the modulus of elasticity of the steel Es gives the displacement between
the steel and the concrete at the crack.
c) The displacement δ is related to the bond stress τ by the bond law (10)
0.67 0.12
τ = 0.5 (fck + 8) δ (10)
The principles developed above were used to develop formula (11) relating the bar diameter Φ to the
characteristic crack width wk.
Φ = 0.40∗10 6
(fck + 8)0.67 w 112
.
(11)
k
σ s2
where
Φ bar diameter (mm)
wk characteristic crack width, wk = 1.3 W m (mm)
wm mean crack width
σs post-cracking steel stress resulting from bending moment causing cracking.
Now, if fct is the tensile strength of concrete and ρ is the ratio of reinforcement on each face,
σ s ≈ 0.2fct ρ . Substituting this in (11) and solving gives equation (12)
Φ
ρmin = 0.2fct 0.66
(12)
0.40 ⋅ 10 6 (fck + 8) w k112
.
where fct is given by equation (4).

Then the maximum bar spacing on each face is given by
1
4
πΦ2
s= (13)
1000 tρmin
where
s bar spacing (mm)
t concrete thickness (m)
Equations (11) to (13) are identical with equations (9.1) to (9.3) of the Model Code.
8 Practical Design
The analysis can be considerably simplified in many cases, particularly as the characteristic wind and
thermal loads are unlikely to occur simultaneously.
8.1 Horizontal Sections

For practical design it is considered that the small reduction in strength of the section can be ignored for
∆T < 60K. This permits the use of the dimensioning diagrams of Commentary 6.
The dimensioning diagrams at the end of this section may be used to calculate the vertical reinforcement
required in the neighbourhood of a corbel where the moment ML Is non-zero.
8.2 Vertical Sections

The ultimate limit state requires that
Muh > γ whMwh (14)
where
Muh ultimate resistance moment
Mwh characteristic ovalling moment (Model Code section 8.3.1)
γwh ultimate wind load factor for ovalling
This is equation 8.14a in the Model Code
As shown in section 6 the serviceability limit state requires that
My > M
where
My moment for which σs > fsk
In practice it is found that for values of ∆T < 60K, this can be approximated by
Muh > M1 (15)
This is equation 8.14b in the Model Code.
9 Example
In the following, the section shown in Figure 6 is analysed by the simplified method, then checked by the
detailed method.
Data
fsk 400MPa
fck 30 MPa
thickness t 0.4 m
cover t1 0.045 m
∆T 50 K
Mwh 0.0610 MN
γwh 1.4
Figure 6 : Cross-section of a chimney with circumferential reinforcement: Example for explanation
(1) Ultimate limit state

Equation (14) Mu > γwh Mwh → Mu > 0.0854 → ρ >0.0018
(2) Serviceability limit state
I 4 nd
I 0.00559 m (2 moment of uncracked section)
fct 2.811 from equation (4)
Equation (3) M1 = 0.0786 < Mu
Therefore ρ = 0.0018 is sufficient.
(3) Crack width
wk 0.2 mm
Φ 12 mm (trial value for bar diameter)
12
Equation (12) ρmin = 0.2 ⋅ 2.811 = 0.0023 > ρ
400000 ⋅ 38 0.66 ⋅ 0.2112
.
therefore the reinforcement must be increased. Note that in this example the use of steel with greater
yield strength would not lead to a reduction in the required reinforcement.
π ⋅ 122
The spacing of 12mm bars is given by equation 13: s = = 123 mm
4000 ⋅ 0.4 ⋅ 0.0023
The detailed calculation for serviceability (section 4) gives:

Ecm 850(30+8) = 32300 MPa from equation (7)

ρ1 0.0018
ρ2 0.0018
II 4
I 0.00048 m from equation (8)
- equilibrium condition and compatibility condition
40.4 ⋅ Im = M − 0.0610 from equation (5)

M
0.000031 m = 0.065 ⋅ M − 0.0021 from equation (6)
I
-results
M = 0.0912 MN
MT = 0.0912 - 0.0610 = 0.030 MN
m 4
I = 0.00075 m
My = 0.0948 MN
Since My > M the serviceability condition is satisfied. The crack width calculation is unchanged, so the
required reinforcement ratio = 0.0023 as found by the simplified method.
List of Literature
1. Noakowski, P.: "Method of Design for Circumferential Reinforcement of Industrial Chimneys", 2nd
Chimney Design Symposium and Exhibition, Edinburgh,30 March-1 April 1976.
2. Noakowski, P.: "Die Bewehrung von Stahlbetonbauteilen bei Zwangsbeanspruchung infolge
Temperatur”, Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, Verlag W. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1978.
3. Kupfer, H., Noakowski, P.: "Untersuchung der vertikalen l Temperaturrisse in Schäften von
Industrieschornsteinen aus Stahlbeton", Kongressband der 3. Internationalen Schornstein-Tagung,
Vulkan-Verlag Essen, 25./26. Okt. 1978.
4. Noakowski, P.: "Practicable Method for the Design of Circular Reinforcement of Industrial
Chimneys", Fourth International Symposium on Industrial Chimneys, The Hague,11 and 12 May,
1981.
5. Noakowski, P.: “Mitwirkungsgesetze zur Ermittlung der Verformungen und der
Zwangbeanspruchung bei gleichzeitiger Lastbeanspruchung"; Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 81 (1986),
pages 318 - 325.
6. Noakowski, P.:”Verbundorientierte, kontinuierliche Theorie zur Ermittlung der Rißbreite” or
“Continuous theory for the determination of crack width under the consideration of bond” (in
German and English),Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 80 (1985).
7. Noakowski, P., Schäfer, H.G.,: ”Control of crack width: comparison of predictions in CICIND and
EC2”, University of Dortmund, Germany,1998.
8. England,G.,Phillips,E.: “Effect of Shrinkage and Creep on the Short- and Long-term State of Stress
in Reinforced Concrete Chimneys”; Chimney Design Symposium, Edinburgh, April 1973.
9. Krichevsky,A.P.,Brizhaty,O.E.,Korsun,V.I. & Krichevsky,S.A., “Temperature effects in Reinforced
Concrete Chimneys and the prospects of Steel Fibre Shotcrete for Reinforcement of Concrete
Chimneys”; CICIND Report Vol.12, No.1,1996.
−Nu
− nu = −
t fck
Mu
mu =
t 2 fck
Fig. 7: Dimensioning Diagram for the Determination of the Ratio of Reinforcement ρ and the
Wall Thickness t of Rectangular Cross-sections with t1/t = 0.05
−Nu
− nu = −
t fck
Mu
mu =
t 2 fck
−Nu
− nu = −
t fck
Mu
mu =
t 2 fck
Commentary No. 8
Seismic Actions
Table of Contents
1 General
1.1 Overview
2 Elastic response
2.1 Typical design response spectrum
2.2 The effect of weak soil layers
2.3 Peak ground acceleration
2.4 Response spectrum method
2.5 Modulus of elasticity
2.6 Second order effects
2.7 A world map of earthquake areas
3 Seismic design actions
3.1 Importance factor
3.2 Structural response factor
3.3 Return periods
4 References
1 General
1.1 Overview
This commentary extends section 7.3 of the Model Code to provide a more detailed description of the
calculation of the actions.
2 Elastic response
2.1 Typical design response spectrum

The seismic action is described by means of a standardised acceleration response spectrum. The
spectrum is given as a function of the period (T) of the structure by the expressions (1) and plotted in
Figure 1:
for T ≤ 0.1s : a s (T ) = a (1 + 20T )
for 0.1s < T ≤ 0.4s : a s (T ) = 3a (1)
β
for 0.4s < T : a s (T ) = 3a S(T 0.4 ) ≤ 3a
where
T period of the structure in seconds
a maximum effective peak ground acceleration at the location of the chimney
S Soil factor depending on soil type, see Table 3
β Soil exponent, see Table 3
2.2 The Effect of Weak Soil Layers

The presence of soil overlying rock modifies the amplitude and frequency content of the earthquake
ground motion. Figure 1 presents normalised response spectra for three types of soil designated S1, S2
and S3. The curve S=1 is applicable for stiff soils or soil with rock at a depth of 0 to 10 m. The curve with
S = 1.2 holds for soft or medium stiff soils over rock at a depth between 10 and 60 m whilst the curve with
S = 1.5 holds for soft or medium stiff soils of depth greater than 60 m. The classification of soil as soft or
medium stiff depends on the relative density for non-cohesive soils and on the sensitivity ratio for
cohesive soils.
Figure 1 Response spectra for different soil types
The Relative Density is a measure of the voids in the soil and can only be determined for soils with a low
fines content .The Sensitivity is the ratio between the shear strength of a specimen in the undisturbed
state and its shear strength after remoulding. This ratio can only be used for cohesive soils. The values of
Relative Density and Sensitivity are given in Table 2.
Representative normalised design response spectra for different soil sites are also presented in the 1997
“Uniform Building Code” of the USA [6] and the European standard “Eurocode 8:design provisions for the
earthquake resistance of structures” [7].
Table 1: Determination of Soil Type from Soil Condition and Soil Depth
Soil Depth to Rock(m) Soil Condition
Stiff Soft or Medium Stiff
0 to 10 S1 S1
10 to 60 S1 S2
> 60 S1 S3
The classification of soil condition as stiff, medium stiff or soft follows from Table 2.
Table 2: Classification of Soil Condition according to Soil Characteristic
Soil Characteristic Soil Condition
Non-Cohesive Soil: Cohesive Soil:
Value of Relative Density Value of Sensitivity
< 0.3 <8 stiff
0.3 to 0.8 8 to 30 medium
> 0.8 > 30 soft
The Relative Density is a measure of the deposition condition in the soil. The Sensitivity
is the ratio between the undrained shear strength of a specimen in undisturbed and
remoulded states.
For piled foundations, the soil type is determined according to the condition at the toe of the piles.
Table 3: Soil Factor S and Soil Exponent β for the Three Soil Types
Soil Type Soil Factor S Soil Exponent β
S1 1.0 - 0.8
S2 1.2 - 0.67
S3 1.5 - 0.67
2.3 Peak ground acceleration

If the intensity of ground motion is defined by the Modified Mercalli Scale IMM, the peak ground
acceleration a can be determined from Table 4.
Table 4: Peak ground acceleration as a function of Modified Mercalli Scale IMM

IMM a
VI 0.07g
VII 0.15g
VIII 0.30g
IX 0.50g
X 0.70g
g is the acceleration due to gravity
The maximum response in each mode does not occur simultaneously since the modes are not exactly in
phase. Consequently the overall response of the chimney is calculated using a root sum square method to
combine the individual modal contributions. The theory associated with the response spectrum method is
presented in many earthquake engineering reference books such as [1].
2.4 Response spectrum method

Initially the mode shapes and the associated normalised deflections ui , shear forces Qi and
moments M i are calculated by modal analysis. The response of the chimney in each mode ui is
estimated using the equation:
ui = ui Ni
where
Pi Ti2
Ni = as ( Ti ) Ni = Modal scaling factor
4π 2
h
∫ ui (z) m( z) dz
0
Pi = h Pi = Modal participation factor
∫ ui 2 ( z) m( z) dz
0
The scaling factor Ni used for the mode shape ui will also apply for the moments and shear forces.
2.5 Modulus of Elasticity

Increasing the stiffness of the chimney increases the resonant frequencies and increases the earthquake
induced loads. Therefore the short-term values for the modulus of elasticity given by equation (8.3) of the
Model Code should be used in calculating the frequencies of the various modes.
2.6 Second Order Effects

The effects of second order moments developed under earthquake excitation are considered negligible
and may be neglected.
2.7 A World Map of Earthquake Areas

Figure 2 (from [2]) is presented as a separate sheet at the back of the Commentaries and presents as a
guide a world map of seismic hazards including an estimate of seismic risk in terms of the risk of
exceedence of different levels of peak ground acceleration. The relation between the Mercalli scale and
the peak acceleration given in Table 4 is a simplification of empirical values. It is recommended that site
specific acceleration values be determined and used for design purposes.
3 Seismic Design Actions

The seismic design actions are obtained from the elastic response by multiplying the actions by an
importance factor (IF) and dividing by a structural response factor (R).
3.1 Importance factor

The importance factor is dependent on the importance class of the chimney:
Class 1: IF = 1.2 (R=1) or IF = 1.0 (R=2)
Class 2: IF = 1.4
3.2 Structural response factor

The structural response factor is dependent on the level of seismic detailing:
R=1 No specific seismic detailing
R=2 Seismic detailing in accordance with Section 7.3.4.3 of the Code (this implies the use of
Capacity Design)
3.3 Return periods

The importance factors and structural response factors have been selected so that the return periods
associated with the serviceability limit state and the structural stability limit state are reasonable. The
serviceability limit state (SLS) is associated with the ultimate strength of the chimney being reached whilst
the structural stability limit state (SSLS) is associated with inelastic failure of the chimney. Based on
analytical studies the ratio of ground acceleration between the SSLS and SLS has been assumed equal to
1.4 and 1.4 x 4 = 5.6 for the non-seismic and seismic designs respectively, where the factor 1.4 reflects
the available flexural overstrength . The design basis (DB) earthquake is associated with a return period
of 475 years.
The effective return periods are listed in the following table for each of the different chimney classes,
levels of detailing and levels of seismicity. The table also lists the ratios of the acceleration coefficients
(peak effective ground accelerations) associated with the SLS (ae/a475) and SSLS (af/a475) events to the
DB event.
Return Period (Years)
Class Detailing Seismicity IF R af/ae ae/a47 af/a475 DB SLS SSLS

5
1 Elastic Low 1.2 1 1.4 1.2 1.7 475 730 1750

High 1.2 1 1.4 1.2 1.7 475 1130 7700
1 Seismic Low 1.0 2 5.6 0.5 2.8 475 120 8300
High 1.0 2 5.6 0.5 2.8 475 40 10000+
2 Elastic Low 1.4 1 1.4 1.4 2.0 475 1075 2700
High 1.4 1 1.4 1.4 2.0 475 2600 10000+
2 Seismic Low 1.4 2 5.6 0.7 3.9 475 220 10000+
High 1.4 2 5.6 0.7 3.9 475 120 10000+
Table 5 - Return periods associated with different limit states
The return periods of different earthquake events have been calculated on the basis of a generic seismic
hazard map (Figure 1) and the following approximate relationship [4],[5] between effective peak ground
acceleration (aT) and return period (T).
1 
(1 N)
a T =  Ln( T)
β 
where β, N are seismicity dependent and summarised in Table 6.
(It should be emphasised that the prediction of return periods for a given level of seismicity is an inexact
science and the values should be taken as indicative and approximate only. Recent paleoseismic studies
have suggested that the peak ground acceleration associated with long return period events in regions of
low seismicity may be higher than indicated in Figure 3 [8].)
Parameter Seismicity
Very Low Low Moderate High
β 17.3 14.2 12.3 12.3
N 0.36 0.37 0.42 0.72
a500 0.05g 0.10g 0.20g 0.40g
Table 6 - Seismicity parameters

Figure 3 - Peak ground acceleration as a function of return period and seismicity
4 References
1) Wiegel, R. L.: Earthquake Engineering, 1970, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New York.
2) GSHAP Map, from a UN/IDNDR Program carried out by the International Lithosphere Program, 1999.
3) Wilson, J.L., 2000,”Code recommendations for the aseismic design of tall reinforced concrete
chimneys”, CICIND Report Vol.16 No.2.
4) Applied Technology Council, 1978, "ATC 3-06" Tentative provisions for the development of seismic
regulations for buildings", USA.
5) Booth, E., 1984, "Assessment of Seismic Hazard", Arup Journal, June pp 13-21.
6) UBC,1997,”Uniform Building Code” International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California,
USA.
7) CEN,1996,”Eurocode 8:Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures” Draft ENV 1996-1.
8) FEMA, 1997, “NEHRP guidelines and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings: FEMA
273” Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC,USA.
GLOBAL SEISMIC HAZARD MAP
Produced by the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP)
a demonstration project of the UN/International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, conducted by the International Lithosphere Program.
Global map assembled by D. Giardini, G. Grünthal, K. Shedlock and P. Zhang
1999
2
Peak ground acceleration (m/s )
10% probability of exceedence in 50 years, 475 year return period
Figure 2 Global Seismic Hazard Map
(from GSHAP programme for the UN IDNDR project)
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8

LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH
HAZARD HAZARD HAZARD HAZARD

RCC Chimney - CICIND Commentary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCC Chimney - CICIND Commentary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCC Chimney - CICIND Commentary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CICIND

Commentaries for the

Model Code for

Copyright CICIND 2001

Office of The Secretary

Commentary No. 1 Safety Factors 1

Commentary No. 2 Material Law in the Ultimate Limit State 8

Commentary No. 3 Wind Load 11

Commentary No. 4 Moments of 2nd Order 18

Commentary No. 5 Openings and Point Loads 25

Commentary No. 6 Dimensioning Diagrams for Horizontal Cross-Sections 29

Commentary No. 7 Superposition of Effects from Temperature and Loads 40

Commentary No. 8 Seismic Actions and Capacity Design 52

CICIND, Zurich, Switzerland

– Office of the Secretary –

Failure Probability and Safety Factors

2 Justification of the target failure probability

2.1 Social criteria

Table 1 Social criterion factors

Assuming that nd = 50 and K s = 0.05 gives the values of Pf in Table 2

Table 2 Typical failure probabilities Pf for environmental risk

2.2 Economic criteria

Fig.1 Total Cost vs. Failure Probability

2.3 Importance classes

Table 3: Importance Classes for Concrete Chimneys

It is suggested that the importance class be specified by the owner.

3 Choice of partial safety factors for the ultimate limit state

3.1 Definition of Failure

3.2 Method for the determination of the failure probability

Table 4: Random Variables for the determination of the failure probability of

Random Characteristic Normalised

The following normalised cross-sectional forces are used in the calculations:

The failure probability PF is given by equation 6

The "failure factor" cu which appears In this integral is determined as follows:

3.3 Calculation of the Failure Factor cu

Using the values of mu and mw the failure factor cu is determined from:

3.4 Assumptions for the extreme-value distribution for wind

4 Results and Justification of the CICIND Safety Factors

4.1 Inline wind - final state

Table 5: Failure probabilities for the chimney cross-section

4.2 Safety Factor for Earthquake

4.3 Safety Factor for the Construction State

4.4 Safety Factor for Corbel Loading

4.5 Safety Factor for the Serviceability Limit State

A safety factor of γWs = 1.3 is recommended.

1. Construction Industry Research and Information Association: ”Rationalisation of safety and

Material Law in the Ultimate Limit State

2 Ultimate Limit State of Concrete

3 Ultimate Limit State of Reinforcement

1.1 Basic Wind Speed

1.2 Wind maps

1.3 The Influence of the Topography

The factor kt is obtained by formula (1)

h height of hill or escarpment, see Figure 7

If equation (1) gives a value kt < 1, then kt = 1.

1.4 Interfering Objects

2 The Gust Factor and the Peak Factor

3 The Static Equivalent of the Wind Load due to Gusts

Figure 7 – Hill parameters for determining kt