Papel: (Rad ‘ACI Commitee Repos, Guides, Standard Practices, and Com ‘eva imended fo guessing, plaming er in. oc ispecting contruction ed in preparing wean. Re {teace to these documents tall nor be made fn the Project ecaments. tema found fn hee dociment are ded be [tof the Project Document they should be pred mandatory Jnapage and incorporated into the Poe Decuments. ACL SOTRSB Commentary on Standard Practice for the Design and Construction of Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete Chimneys (ACI 307-88) Reported by ACI Committee 307 Wadi S. Ruma ‘Chonan eed Bales ‘A Felons Michael R, Roney ‘Blanchard Sunwel A. Peschet Philp ©. Siter i Sigmund A. Freeman Randolph W. Soot Milton Haran Lye €: Thorn Jagat Ron Bary 1. Vikery Danaay K. Mabjan Wan Wen Fo Yau (Onear A Rocha Edward. Yordy {Ms conmentry acsss some of the hckground and consideration of _3.3—Suengih ets Cammiae 37 te developing the provisions contd in “Standard Prac: ——-3.4—-Forma efor the Design and Contracion of Catt-n Place Reinforced Concrete _3.$Relafocing placemest ‘Chinn ACI 307-68," The changes from he previous eon are noted. __3.6Coneree paceman, Tho appendices provide the dervation ofthe equations for nominal _-3.7_—Coner caring send end emperor sees. Chapter 4—Service loads and general design Xayrrdachmey; compre urna; concrete construction; ardqute n: — titetla, p. SO7R-3 i once fre emanates gh tempera Feige; 4. 1—Geerl ‘eet en nome opengl Cour rahe omer eforng 4. 2-—Wid loud ‘Sek sitions ate ade eps vectn! tape aren dig, A foals ‘ost: hal pes wid pete 43—Deheton ete Chapter 5—Design of chimney shell—Strength method, p. 2077-6 S.1—Gexent 4—Dagn areagn 5:5-Nominal moment wreath '5.6—Desgn for cecurferentil bending Chapter 6—Thermal stresses, p. 3072-7 6.1—Genent (62 Vercl temperature wees ‘Append x A—Derivation of equations for nominal ‘strength, p. 9078-7 ‘Appendix B—Derivation of equations for temperature stresses, p. 307R-12 Appendix C—References, p. 307R-12 307-1sora INTRODUCTION AAs industry expanded in the years immediately following World War I and as a result of the development of large pulverized coal fired boilers forthe elecric power generat- ing utilities in the 1920s, a number of rather large reinforced concrete chimneys were constructed to accommodate these ‘ew facilities. A group of interested engineers who foresaw the potential need for many more such chimneys and who were members of the American Conerete Institute decided toembark upon an effort to develop a rational desiga criteria for these structures. The group was organized into ACI Committee 50S (this committee was the predecessor of the present Committee 307) to develop such a criteria in the carly 1930s. Committee 505 submitted to the Institute # S ‘Standard Specification for the Design and Con- struction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys," an outline of which was published in the ACI JouaNat. Proceedings V. 30, Mar-Apr, 1934. This specification was adopted as a tentative standard in February, 1936, Although this tentai standard was never accepted by ACI as a regular standard, was used as the basis for the design of many chimneys. AS these chimneys aged, inspections revealed considerable cracking, When the industrial expansion began following ‘World War It, other engineers recognized the need for de- veloping an improved reinforced concrete chimney design specification, In May 1949, Committee 505 was reactivated to revise the tentative standard specification, embodying modifice- tions which were found desirable during the years it had been in use. The section dealing with the temperature gra- dient through the chirnney lining and the chimney shell was completely revised and extended to cover varying kinds and thicknesses of linings and both unventiated and ventilated air spaces between the lining and the concrete shell. In 1954, this specification was approved as ACI 505-54. ‘The mapid increase in the size and height of concrete chimneys being built in the mid 1950s raised further ques- tions about the adequacy of the 1954 version of the speci cation, especially as related to earthquake forces and 1 effects of wind. {In May 1959, the ACI Board of Direction again react vated Committee 50S (Committee 307) to review the stan- ‘dard and (o update portions of the specification inline with the latest design techniques and the then current knowledge of the severity of the operating conditions which prevailed ‘on large steam plants. The material in the standard was reorganized, charts were added and the methods for deter- mining loads duc to wind and earthquakes were revised. “The information on design and construction of various types of linings was amplified and incorporated in an appendix. ‘This specification included criteria for working siress de- sign. It was planned to add ultimate strength criteria in a future revision ofthis standard. Jn preparing the earthquake design recommendations, the ‘Committee incorporated the results of theoretical studies by adapting them to existing United States codes. The primary problems in this endeavor stemmed from the uncertainties Stil inherent in the definition of earthquake forces and from the difficulty of selecting the proper safely and ser- viceability levels that may be desirable for various classes of MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE construction. Committee investigations revealed that with some of the modifications (such as the K factor), the base shear equations developed by the Seismology Commitee of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) ‘could be applied 10 chimneys. Similarly, the shape of the force, shear, and moment distributions, as revised in their 1967 report were also suitable for chimneys. A use factor (U factor) ranging from 1.3 to 2.0 was introduced inthe speci- fication and it was emphasized that the requirements of Sec- tion 4.5 of ACI 307-69 relating to seismic design may be ‘superceded by a rational analysis based on evaluation of the scismicity of the site and modal response calculations. The modifications were approved in 1969 and the specification twas designated ACI 307-69. In that specification, the com- mentary and derivation of equations were published sepa rately as a supplement to ACI 307-69. Jn 1970 the specification was reissued with corrections of typographical errs. This issue of ACI 307-69 was also designated ANSI A158.1-1970. At the time, as a result of ‘numerous requests, the commentary and derivation of equa tions were bound together with the specification “The 1979 revision ofthe specification updated its require- ments to agree withthe then accepted standard practice in the design and construction of reinforced concrete chim- neys. The major changes included the requirement that two layers of reinforcing stee! be used in the walls ofall chim- rneys (previously this only applied to chimney walls thicker than 18 in.) and the requirement that horizontal sections through the chimney wall be designed for the radial wind pressure distribution around the chimney. Formulas, were included 10 compute the stresses under these conditions ‘Many revisions of a less important nature were included 10 bring the specificetion up to date. ‘The editions of the specifications prior to 1979 included appendixes on the subject of chimney linings and accesso- ties. In 1971, Committee 307 learned of buckling problems in stel chininey liners. The Committee also noted that in modem power plant and process chimneys, environmental regulations required treatment of the effluent gases that ‘could result in extremely variable and aggressively corrosive ‘conditions in the chimneys. In view of these facts, the Com- mmltee agreed that the task of keeping the chimney liner recommendations current was not a responsibility of an ACT committee and could be misleading to designers using the ‘chimney specification. It was the consensus of the Commit- tee that the reference to chimney liner construction be dropped from future editions of the specification. Recogniz~ ing this, Committee 307 made @ recommendation to the Brick Manufacturers Association and the American Society ‘of Civil Engineers that each appoint a task force or a com mittee for the development of design criteria for brick and sleet liners respectively. The Power Division of ASCE teok up the recommendation and appointed 2 task committee ‘which developed and published in 1975 a design guide en- titled, “Design and Construction of Steel Chimney Liners.~ ‘ASTM established two task forces for chimney liners, ome for brick and the other for fiberglass reinforced plastic. ‘The Committee had extensive discussion on the question of including strength design in the 1979 specification. The decision to exclude it was based on the lack of experimencal: 1 aia on hollow concrete cylinders to substantiate this form of analysis for concrete chimneys, However, the Committee continued 10 consider strength design and encouraged ex. iments in this area. ‘Shortly after the 1979 edition was issued, the Committee decided to incorporate strength design provisions and up- date the wind and earthquake design requirements. A sub- committee was established for cach of these tasks, and the curent standard is largely the result of the efforts of the subcommittees ‘The following lists the major changes incorporated in the current standard ‘© Modified requirements for smaller chimneys ‘# New procedures for along-wind loads ‘Added procedures for calculating across-wind loads © Added procedure for combi across-wind loads # Added procedure for calculating earthquake loads sing either dynamic response spectrum analysis or equivalent static lateral force method + Deleted working stress procedure # Added procedure for strength design * Deflection criteria added ‘A chapter by chapter commentary follows, CHAPTER 1—GENERAL 1.2—Drawings and computations Approval of the drawings and computations by the en- sieer representing the owner has been deleted because this ‘asa procedural requirement, not a design or construction requirement CHAPTER 2—MATERIALS 2.1—General ‘The intent ofthe standard is to use the provisions of ACI 318 except as otherwise noted, 23—Aggregates ‘The maximums aggregate size is more restrictive than ACL 318 t0 promote consolidation in thin walted chimney construction. 24—Reintorcement ASTM specification A 615 has been retained, and A 617 2nd A 706 have been added because they require atleast 7 etcent elongation, which is the basis for the nominal mo- ‘ment strength formulas in the strength design section ASTM A 616 should not be used because it is less ductile than A 615, A 617, oF A 706 and requires only 4.5 percent longation. The reference to the specification for structural see] has been deleted because structural steel is rarely used for chimney reinforcement. CHAPTER 3—CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 3.1—General ‘The intent of the standard is to use the pro ons of ACI MB except as otherwise noted REINFORCED CONCRETE CHIMNEYS COMMENTARY 3.2—Conerete quality ‘The engineer or owner should indicate inthe job specif- cation the strength and other characteristics required for the concrete used in the chimney construction. The maximum water-cement ratio and air entrainment have been deleted because they are covered in ACI 318, 3.3—Strength tests ‘The numberof test specimens to be made forthe strength {ests set forth in this standard is the minimum. Ifthe en gincer or owner desires to have more test specimens made for strength tests or use accelerated strength testing, the job specification shoulé modify the requirement to the exient necessary to accomplish this. Responsibility for the cost of the testing has been deleted because this was a procedural Fequirement, not 2 design or construction requirement. 3.4—Forms: 3.4.1 Additional information on form design can be found in ACI 347 and ACI Manual of Concrete Inspection, «SP-2) 3.44 The 2000 psi requirement for stripping certain forms has been deleted because it has been superceded by the requirement that forms shall be removed in such a man- ner as to insure the complete safety of the structure. 3.4.5 Ties between inner and outer chimney shell forms ‘re not permitted because of possible corrosion problems due 10 the corrosive gases. 3.5—Relnforcing placement 3.5.3 The requirement based on industry practice for staggering of splices in reinforcing steel has been added. 3 ‘Concrete placement ‘Additional information on concrete handling and placing ean be found in ACI 306. 3.7—Conerete curing ‘Additional information on concrete curing can be found in ACI 308. CHAPTER 4—SERVICE LOADS AND GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA 4.1.6 Temporary access upenings—The requirements for ‘access doors and filling of temporary openings have been deleted because these requirements will vary from chimney to chimney and should be determined for each chimney and ‘covered in the job specification 4.2.1 Wind loads—General—The specified wind loads ‘ate determined from simplified dynamic analyses which yield equivalent static load distributions. This approach re ‘auires that # wind speed averaged over a period on the order f 20 min to 1 hr be used as a basis for design. Eq. (4-1) permits the mean hourly speed at height 2 to be determined from the basic design speed which is the “fastest mite” ‘speed at 33 fr over open country. The conversion is based on. the relationship recommended by Holliste.' The specified wind loads presume that the chimney is located in open ‘country. In-rougher terrains the overall loads will be re-207R4 ‘duced, but for tall chimneys (heights on the order of 650 f1) the reduction is not likely to exceed 20 percent ‘The simplified provisions ofthis standard do not preclude the use of more detailed methods, and the results of a full dynamic analysis employing accepted approaches and rec- ‘ognizing the flow profile and turbulence levels at a specific site may be used in lieu of the standard provisions. In this cease the loads so determined must be those associated with a retum period of not less than 50 years. The approximate ‘methods have, however, been tested against more detailed analyses, using probablistic® and deterministi proaches. These methods yielded acceptable results. The ‘cometry of the twelve sample chimneys is given in Table 421. Table 4.2.1—Dimensions and periods of twelve ‘sample chimneys “oal_| Fim | Second | Top | Bue chimey | mode | mode | din | dhe ‘eight. | per. | period, | meter, | mete, tee | Pree | a | Mee seo 1.33 | 02s | 35.16 | 30.00 | 800 s70_|_1.4 [0276 | 1698 | 06.90 | is.25 ssa_| 191 | o4se {3747 {36.39 | 1000 os | 26 | 047 | 3629 | sa.o8 | 1200 oro | tas | 0.322 | 94.17 [101.07 | 1625 700_| 2.93 | o4v | 20.15 | 37.85 [9.00 195_[ 3.76 [0903 | 39.25 | “67.04 | 9.00 7 | 426] 09m | «046| 1733] 950] 3200 ooo | 44 | 107 | 3350 | 1485] 9.00] 31.00 wo_| 475 | 100 | 3546 | 7425 | 11.00] 43.00 vos 449 [1.15 | tas | 00.20 | 10.00 | 38.00 r200_[ 3.9 [1.08 [39.00 | 121.30 [ 12.00 [ 30.0 4.2.2 Along-wind loads—The recommended drag coeff- cients are consistent with slender chimneys {h/d(h) > 20] with a relative surface roughness on the order of 10* to 10°. ‘Some reduction in the drag coefficient, C,, with decreasing ‘ath can be expected but unusually rough (e.g. ribbed) chimneys would have higher values of C,,. The variations of | ,, with roughness and aspect ratio are discussed by Basu’ and Vickery and Basu.* ‘The (otal load per unit length is computed as the sum of the mean component [W(2) = Cy(a)* diz) * pC)! and the ‘dynamic component [w'(2) = w'(A) + 21h}. The dynamic ‘component was evaluated using a slightly modified form of the “gust factor” approaches described by Davenport.” Vickery.! and Simiu." The base moment is evaluated using the gust factor approach but the loeds producing this mo- ment are approximated by a triangular distribution rather ‘than a distribution matching the mean. Eq. (4-6) isa simple ‘empirical fit to values of G,, computed as above fora struc- tural damping of 1.5 percent of critical. The fist mode period of 7, [Eq. (4-7)] which is based on the work by Romman’* has been tested against the periods of the twelve sample chimneys using dynamic analysis. 4.2.3 Across-wind loads—The loads defined by Ey. (4-8) and (4-9) approximate the inertial loads corresponding to the peak displacement induced by vortex shedding at a wind speed near the critical speed defined by Eq, (4-1 la) MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE ‘and (4-11b). The approach is based upon a model of vortex shedding proposed by Vickery and Basu"! the simplifica- tions which lead to the format are discussed in Reference 3 and predictions are compared with full-scale observations in Reference 10. It should be noted thatthe predictions of the peak loads due to shedding is made difficult by the paucity ‘of data concerning the key aerodynamic parameters and, to 1 slightly lesser extent, the damping. The accuracy of the predictions is discussed in Reference 6. ‘The simplified approach included in the standard is suited to vortex excitation of the fundamental mode only. If the critical speed for excitation ofthe second mode (Eq. (4-7)] is below 1.45V(A), the designer should consult the refer: fences at the end of this commentary. The modal charac- teristics of tapered chimneys including the second mode period 7, (Eq. (4-18)] are discussed by Rumman.** 4.2.3.3 Grouped chimneys—Interactions between closely spaced cylindrical objects have been studied in con- siderable detail but virtually all the test results are for sub- critical values of Reynolds Numbers and their applicability to chimneys is highly questionable, However, even withthe seale effects introduced by the inequality of Reynolds [Number the wind tunnel is presently the only tool that will provide guidance as to the likely magnitude of interference effects. A review of interference effects is given by ERESRRTRRLT to-center spacings, 5, in excess of 210 3 diame- ters the prime interference effect is related to the across- wind excitation due to shedding. The recommendations in Section 4.2.3.3 are based on the results of Vickery and Daly" and were obtained at subcritical values of Reynolds Number. The same reference also contains results for two cylinders of different size with the upstream structare hav: ing a diameter 25 percent greater than the diameter, d, of the ‘ther. In this case the amplification of the response of the ‘downwind chimney is roughly 3.4 ~ 0.2s/d for 4 < sid < 12. The amplification of shedding for grouped cylinders has also been noted at full-scale" but the available data is not sufficient to quantitatively validate model test results 4.2.4 Circumferential bending —The equation for the prediction of the circumferential moments is based upon measured pressure disiributions.'*"* Comparative values for the bending moments as obtained from different distribu: tions are given in Reference 4. The use of a gust factor, G,. in this computation is based upon the assumption that the mean pressure distribution (when expressed in coefficient form) is also applicable for short duration gusts. ‘The increase in the loads near ‘consistent with ‘observations that the drag coefficient increases signiti- cantly in this region. 4.3—Earthquake loads In preparing the earthquake design recommendations, the ‘Committee made an extensive study of the seismic behavior ‘of chimneys using both static method and dynamic analysis. ‘A total of twelve representative chimneys of various diame- ters, heights, and tapers were selected. The fundamental periods of these chimneys are listed in Table 4.2.1. Com- rmitte investigations revealed thatthe existing static analy- sis method had to be modified to give a better correlation to DEL ae ee eo ee guns SQA ESREREINFORCED CONCRETE CHIMNEYS COMMENTARY the more accurate dynamic analysis results. Through this aration study, it was practically impossible to provide an quvalnt static method that would yield results of the same Seoracy as those from dynamic analyses for all chimneys, fh addition, the availability of modem computers to the industry bas improved so much that a dynamic analysis is performed today in most design offices. Consequently, Praphasized that 2 dynamic response spectrum analysis, Should be considered as the most reliable and recommended tnethod for earthquake design of chimneys and should be sued where specified. Tn addition to the response spectrum, the standard permits the use ofthe equivalent static lateral force method for the ‘design of chimneys. The recommended values of use factor, the numerical coefficients for base shear, the distribution of eral force, and the multipliers for moment and shear al resulted from the calibration study. Regression analysis was employed to achieve the best correlation between the results from dynamic analysis and the equivalent static method. ‘The formula to compute base shear is of the same form 35, the earlier editions of ACI 307 to maintain its simplicity. However, the use factor is revised as 2.0 instead of 1.3 to 2.0, which was previously left to be specified by the owner or the engineer. This change was considered essential in view of the revisions incorporated in other national stan- dards. Both the 1982 Uniform Building Code" and the 1982 have incorporated two new factors to accommodate the occupancy importance, J, and the pos- sible site-structure resonance, $. The use factor, U, in this specification can thus be interpreted as the combined effect of the two factors 1 and S. Chimneys do not, as a rule, represent a great hazard to life and limb, as do buildings with high human occupancy. On the other hand, the damage to chimneys may result in shutdown of plants or industries which are essential to the recovery of large population cen- ters from the effects of severe earthquakes. For this reason, several national codes/standards recommend that any facil ity essential to the post-carthquake recovery shall have the capacity to function during and immediately after an earth- quake, Thus, the importance factor, J, is taken as 1.50 for essential facilities in both the Uniform Building Code and ANSI standard, and the soil factor, S, is used to account for the effects of the site soil conditions on building response. The values of S depend on the ratio of the fundamental Period ofthe structure to the site period. It varies from 1.0 ‘o& maximum of 1.5. If chimneys of a period greater than 1.25 sec are built on firm sites, such as bedrock or stiff soil. the soil structural interaction effect is small. Conversely, if the chimney site consists of shallow soft or medium stiff clays and sands, a site-structure resonance is then likely to ‘oceur. Because of the above considerations of structural im- Portance and the possible site-sructure resonance, plus the ‘need to provide a better correlation to the dynamic analysis tus, he Cormier recommends «larger ue factor of From studying the dynamic response of the twelve stan- dard chimneys and other chimneys,* it was found that the ‘atio of the base shear to the total weight of the chimney shells approximately equal 100 26°V7; for a Zane 3 sponse spectrum with a maximum ground acceleration of ems ‘4g, which is substantially greater than 0.13/V Fas given in Eq. (4-26). This means that under the Zone 3 earthquake ‘excitation (2 = 0.75), the dynamic elastic response of a chimney in terms of base shear is about 2.67 times that ‘obtained from the static base shear coefficient assuming tse factor of 1.0, oF 1.33 times that obiained with a use factor of 2.0. Such @ comparison between the elastic dy- namic response spectrum analysis and equivalent static ap- prosch is not unique. As in building design, experience has shown that itis generally not economically feasible to de sign building and components to remain elastic during pos- sible high level ground shaking. Many studies'*™ have shown that buildings designed according to conventional building codes were expected to experience significant yielding during major earthquake excitation. The current Practice, as applied to most buildings of both steel and ‘concrete, strive to produce a design such that: (2) There will be litte or no yielding during an earth. quake that could reasonably be expected during the life of the building (©) There may be significant yielding, but no structural collapse should an extremely large earthquake occur In other words, a limited amount of ductility is permitted for all buildings and structures depending on their construc: tion and detailing conditions. ‘As a result ofthis calibration study, it was decided by the Committee to accept a ductility of 1.33 for determination of the design seismic forces for reinforced concrete chimneys and take the use factor as 2.0. ‘The design response spectrum provided in the standard forthe dynamic analysis is an average elastic response spec- trum, normalized for a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 1.00 with a5 percent of critical damping. It represents & spectrum of 80 percent shape bound probability level that the response of the structure during an earthquake would not ‘exceed. It is the same spectrum that has been adopted for use in the design of steel chimney liners for earthquake by the Task Committee of the American Society of Civil En- sineers." To obtain the design response spectrum, the nor- ‘malized spectrum must be scaled down to the effective peak velocity, EPV, related ground acceleration, ‘The ANSI AS8.1 map for the EPV related acceleration ‘coefficient is used in this standard. This map differs from those used in the Uniform Building Code, which was based on the maximum recorded intensity of shaking without re- tard tothe frequency with which earthquake shaking might ‘occur. The ANSI ASB.1 map. on the other hand, has @ more uniform probability of earthquake occurrence, and is based ‘on those given by the Applied Technology Council, ATC 3.06 contour map.® For exemple, in Zone 4 the EPV related acceleration is 0.4g and the probabil not exceeding this peak, EPV, ground acceleration wit 50 years is estimated to be 90 percent. This is equivalent to ‘a mean recurrence interval of 475 years, of an average an- nual risk of 0.002 events per year. The peak EPV related ‘ground acceleration ata site can be either determined using. this zoning map and the recommended scale factors given i ‘Table 4.3.2 or determined from the specific seismic record available at the site. It should be noted that the aforemen- tioned ductility factor of 1.33 is built into the scale factorsmos of Table 4.3.2. For instance, instead of 0.44, a scale factor of 0.33 is used for a Zone 4 area. It should also be pointed out that the recommended de- sign response spectrum is based on firm sites, Soil condi- tions at the firm site consist of bedrock with shear wave velocity greater than 2500 {sec or deep soil with soil depth exceeding 200 ft, and the soil types overlaying rock are stable deposits of sands, gravels, stiff clays, or stiff soils with deposits less than 200 ft. For chimneys to be built on shallow and soft or medium stff clays and sands, a greater design response spectrum is anticipated. Guidelines pro- vided in ATC 3.06” to obtain a modified design response spectrum and the sil-structure interaction may be used. In feu of a dynamic response spectrum analysis, a time history dynamic analysis is permitted, provided a reliable time history of earthquake ground motion is used. Due to the complications of time history analysis and scarce avail- ability of earthquake ground motion time history records, the Committee adopted the dynamic response spectrum analysis. la the design of a chimney for horizontal earthquake forces, only one horizontal direction need be considered. ‘Unlike building structures, chimneys ate generally axisym- metric, and the orthogonal effects from two horizontal earthquakes acting simultaneously in the two principal di- rections are negligible. ‘The effect of the vertical component ofthe earthquake on the chimney has been determined to be of no design signifi- ‘cance, An extensive time histoty analysis made by the Committee shows thatthe effect of vertical earthquake mo- tions adds only a few percent of vertical stresses to those sesulting from the dead load and horizontal earthquake. One (ofthe principal reasons isto the fac thatthe peak responses ‘between vertical and horizontal earthquakes do not occur at the same instant. Design based on SRSS of vertical and horizontal carth- ‘quake forces will be unduly conservative. Therefore, the inclusion of vertical seismic effects is not recommended by the Committee. For cases in which the chimney lining (brick, steel, oF ‘other materials) are supported by the concrete chimney shell, either at the top of the chimney shell or al other inermediate points, a dynamic analysis including both con- ‘rete shell and liner should be used. Appropriate damping values should be used for the liner depending on its con- struction (e.g. 1.5 percent for steel liners, 4.0 percent for brick liners, and 2.0° percent for fiber reinforced plastic liners). 4.5—Deflection criteria ‘The incorporation ofthe strength design method into the standard will generally result in chimneys with thinner walls, inthe lower portion and with higher deflections. The Com- mittee felt that deflections under service loads should be checked and that the deflections of chimneys designed by the strength method should not vary greatly from the deflec- tions of existing chirmneys designed by the working stress method. Limiting deflections also serves to reduce the ef: fects of secondary bending moments MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE Eq, (4-38) was developed by comparing the deftections of | the sample chimneys designed using the provisions of ACT 307-79 for the 45 Ib/f? wind zone with similar chimneys {same height and outside diameters) designed by the provi sions of the standard for a 110 mph reference design wind ‘speed. Eq, (4-38) allows deflections that are comparable to the sample chimneys designed by the working stress method but does not allow deflections which vary excessively from jorical experience. Operational and practical consid- ‘rations, such as interior platform clearances, may require additional deflection limitations. CHAPTER 5—DESIGN OF CHIMNEY SHELL— ‘STRENGTH METHOD 8.1.2 The maximum compressive strain in the concrete is assumed to be 0.003, or the maximum tensile strain in the steel is assumed to be the fracture limit of 0.07, whichever is reached first. If the stel fracture limit is reached first the maximum concrete strain computed from the linear strain diagram is below 0.003. This deviates from the design as-:: sumptions of ACI 318. For a given otal vertical steel ratio, this may occur when the ratio of the vertical load to the» ‘moment, atthe ultimate condition, is below a certain value ‘A total vertical steel ratio in the chimney cross section less than that per the minimum requirement of ACI 318 for 3 flexural members is permitted sl Even when the maximum concrete compressive strain & is less then 0.003, the stress block is sill considered rec angular. However, in these instances, the stress level is ‘modified by a correction factor called the parameter Q. See ‘commentary on Section 5.5.1 y 5.4.1 In the calculation of limit state bending moments, allowance needs to be made for the moment caused by the. ‘weight of the chimney in its deflected shape. The deflection ; willbe less than that calculated by standard methods due to the sliffening effect of the concrete in the cracked tension zone. Further investigation of this stiffening effect needs to bbe made. At present, the Commitice has decided not to rake a specific recommendation. Instead, the value of (Section 5.4.1) was lowered to 0.8 to account for this effect and deflection criteria was added. “The formulas are also derived for cross sections with one ‘or two openings in, or partly in, the compression zone. NO reduction inthe forces and moments due to reinforcing steel is made to allow for the reduction in the distance of the additional vertical reinforcement on each side of the open- gs provided per Section 4.4.6, 5.5—Nominal moment strength q The formulas for the nominal moment strength of chimney cross sections are obtained based on the design assumptions of ACI 318, except as modified under Section; 5.1.2 ofthis standard. The derivations of the formulas are given in Appendix A. ‘The formulas are derived for circular hollow cross s22- tions with a uniform distribution of vertical reinforcing steel around the circumference. 5.5.1 The parameter Q—The use of a rectangular com- pression stress block a the ultimate stage of rectangular and wih Alias EBB a.j REINFORCED CONCRETE CHIMNEYS COMMENTARY meray ‘pahaped reinforced concrete beams came to be accepted after extensive comparative study between the analytical esulls using the stress-strain relationship and the test data. ‘The acceplability of the rectangular stress block was based con the closeness between the results of the analyses and the tests, comparing the following: (a) concrete compression; and (b) moment of the compression about the neutral axis (ora rectangular section this is equivalent tothe distance of the center of gravity of the compression stress block ftom the neutral axis). ‘The above comparative study was based on the limited test data available on the ultimate capacity of reinforced concrete members of hollow circular sections subjected to axial and transverse loads.” "Another special problem in arriving at the compressive stress block forthe analysis of reinforced concrete chimneys was the fact thatthe maximum concrete compressive strain is less than 0.003 when the fracture limit of ste! is reached. ‘Tha is, the compressive stress block is not fully developed (ace commentary on Section 5.1.2), Thus the previous at tempts at specifying the rectangular stress block for chimney cross sections needed to be modified ‘A numerical study was undertaken by the Commitice 19 find an equivalent rectangular siress block for the ealcula- tion of the ultimate strength of chirmney cross sections. For a given value of a the results of the rectangular concrete compression stress block, expressed by dime sionless modifications of (a) and (b) previously stated, were compared with the corresponding results using a more exact concrete stress-strain relationship given by Hognestad” sing. a limiting. strain of 0.003. The comparisons. were made for hollow circular sections without openings and with single openings with values of B of 10, 20, and 30 dey. It was concluded that for values of a above 20 deg. or when the timiting strain of concrete is reached first, an ‘equivalence between the two approaches is reached if the stress level of the rectangular compression block is reduced by 8 factor of 0.89. For values of a below about 20 deg a further correction is required, leading to the values of the parameter Q defined in Section 5.5.1 Thus the correction factor, or the parameter Q, achieves a «lose equivalence between the resulting values of (a) and (b) Previously stated for the “thereby corrected” rectangular stress block and the stress block based on the Hognestad stress-strain relationship. yet retains the simplicity of the rectangular stess block. 5.8.6 Due to thermal exposure of the concrete chimneys the temperature drop across the wall reduces the nominal strength of chimney sections. This effect is accounted for by Feducing the specified yield strength of steel and specified compressive strength of concrete. The derivation of equations is included in Appendix A. 5.6.2 The commentary on Section 5.5.6 applies equally {0 this seetion CHAPTER 6—THERMAL STRESSES 6.1—General ‘The derivations of the formulas for the vertical and hori- Zontal stresses in concrete and steel, due to a temperature ‘drop only across the chimney wall, are given in Appendix B 6.2.2 The research data available to establish the coeffi- cients of heat transfer through chimney lining and shell, especially as they concer the eat transfer from gases tothe surfaces and through ventilated ai spaces between lining and shell, ae somewhat meager. Unless complete heat bal- ance studies are made forthe particular chimney, it is per- ‘missible to use constants as determined or stated in this standard, APPENDIX A—DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS, FOR NOMINAL STRENGTH Equations for the nominal strength of concrete chimney sections, with and without openings, are derived in this Appendix ‘The faciored vertical load. P. and the corresponding nom- inal moment strength, M,.2r¢ expressed in dimensioniess form, a8 given in Section S.5.1 by Eq. (5-2) and (5-10), respectively Also a procedure to account for the temperature effects in the vertical and horizontal directions is outlined Forces at ultimate are designated as follows » = total force in the concrete com- pressive steess block 5, = tensile force where steel stress is below yield point, from a to Ss: = tensile force where steel stress is at yield point, from to Ss = compressive force in steel! where stress is below yield point, from toa % = compressive force in steel where ‘stress at yield point, from 0 to a2 SiS; SS; = moments of P. S,. Sy. 8.5, about neutral axis, respectively », = factored vertical load acting on section M = nominal moment strength of the 4 = factored moment acting on the sec: tion e = capacity reduction factor Mon = design moment strength ofthe sec- tion Fig. 5.5.1(a) and 5.5.10) cost = 1} = B,(1 ~ cosa) cosy = cosa ~ (1 ~ cosaven] 78.) 6, = 0.07 (1 — cosa) (1 + cosa) 5 0.003 cose = cota + [H1 = cosa) / eq] /E,) B= one-half opening angle ‘y= one-half angle between center lines for two openings 8, = pfifitherelore «f= pf, KEsone ‘n, = number of openings in the compression zone @ =a variable function of a po rlcosa £059). 6 E,p.nd0 era cosa) = eeLit econ ~ sin? (= cosa) = 2GEPM iy ~ a) cosa ~ sing + sina] (1 cosa) But Ep, = Ep, * (wfilaf) TER) of; = Kes: therefore 1» (@ = a)cosa ~ sing + sina 5.2 2eKorf; a sae Si = de Kerf; Sy = 2r- Worth, but oh = of! Sy = Dw = Wrtw sf; P= 2(r = npr 0.85f! = LIfe = mB) = Lye where Acre np Sy = 252 Heed — e086) « 6 Ep,r1d9 (l= €osay ~~ 2eL wrt (= cosa = reef!» (Sine — sine = (@ = peosel (1 = cosa) (sind = Ocosa) ® # = 2 Kort)» Qs MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE 5. = 2uort, erp, sw Sum of vertical forces must equal zero, therefore PL =PHS. 45-5, = 1 7Onf:A + 26K ,0¢if'Q) + Reif eK wPI-B— orn ~ W Pant; =k, = 1.TOA + 26,K,0,(Q, ~ B) + 2u, [a — Cr WE = 1.00, + 26,Kw2 + 2wA, Where Astro np , = nd = sin = = wreose : (1 = cosa) Menton K,= Ej = BLil! 5, 221% —Pleosa = e050)". 6, prid@ (1 = cosa) = esos 5% (costa - 2cosa cost + cos'6) dd (r= cosay “ ¢ = ek o.rf (1 = cosa) sin 20 4 ° (core = 2eosasind +2 2 kere. {1 — cosa) [y= a) cos @ — 2cosar(sin p ~ sina) + (1/2) (y = a) + (1/4)(sin 29 ~ sin 2a)] Les=( 1 =~ ancosta + 2sina cosa ~ 2cosa sing + (112) sin cosy ~ (1/2) sina cosa + (12) (= @)2) = Ub ~ a) costa + 3sina cosa ~ 4 cosa sings + sing cosy ~ (WY ~ a) shrefore ear Yikes dy where 2H ~ cosa) o 1,7 UW — @)costa + 3 sina cosa: ~ 4cosa sing + sing cosd + (Y — a)W/(l = cosa) Ss 24 prtf, * ricosa — cos6) dé = 27 pif, (cosa ~ sind)’ = 2 pg, Cn ~ V) cosa + sing Ph = oS, therefore = 2Yf!a,4, Jy (= pycosa + sin 3 2g (e080 ~ cosa)? Be = coxa) + e£prido = torte S% (cos ~ 2cos6 cosa + costa) dO = cosa)” = eke, . (I= cosa) 6 4 _sin29 2 = MeKeorts, (= cosa) ~ reveane + os) [2y (a = pe) + (114) (Sindee = sind) ~ 2cosa (sina — sin) + (a — 1) cos? a} Let 4, = 2 Wl ~ cosa) Jy =a w+ sinacosa ~ sins cosp — cosa (sina ~ sin) + 2a ~ w)costa}/(t = cosa) REINFORCED CONCRETE CHIMNEYS COMMENTARY ama therefore PUK Jy Si = 2S) rh, + r(cos0 ~ cosa) d0 = Irpsf, + (sin ~ Bcosay = 2rpif,(sinu — cosa) therefore = 2Pif 0, J, where Je sin — pcos For P'with one opening in compression zone (Fig. 5.5.10) P= 20085) + [ (tor id Hcnd - coe <8] = 1.10rY! (sing — rosa — sinB + Bcosa) therefore P Ory! sine ~ (x ~ cosa ~ sin] For P'with two openings in compression zone Fig. $.5.1(0)] (rsing | pete, zs [Ga r)- 11 rene et] = 1.70ry! [sin ~ + cosa — sin (y + B) + sin(y ~ B) + 2 cosa] therefore PY = 1.70r%4f! [sine ~ (7 - 2B) cosa — sin(y ~ B) + sin(y ~ B) Generalizing 170ry! = R where R = sin ~ (1 ~ mB) coser ~ (n,/2){sin (y + B) — sin (y ~ BD For no openings mye B=0307R10 For one opening in compression zone nel yoo For two openings in compression zone nad ‘Sum of moments about neutral axis must equal zero. therefore M,= Pyrcosa + P'+ S) + Si +S) +S; cose + 1.TOPY'R + eri Dyfley J, + erp Kay J, 2 = Prose + LOA IR + eK, +44) + 29), + 4d therefore Myr; = (P,cosairy,) + K, where K, = 1708 + 6K,u,, +) + 20,0, + Jd Ky = LTOR + €,K,0Q, + 20 (Y ~ W)C + 2eosten + (1/2) (4 sin er + sin 2p ~ sin2 w) ~ 4eoser(sinae + sing — singed? (1 = cosa) and K = sind + sing + (9 ~ Y= whcose Muliply both sides of equation by 1/K, IP, P+ MJrif! = rf'1P, © Pecosaleif + VK, + Ky, therefore MIP = cosa + K,IK, and require Moy OM, = M, For two symmetric openings partly in compression zone Fig, 5.5.10), yt Bor MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE and yoRst let b=y-B Situation isthe same as for no openings in the compression zone with R = sind ~ Scoso and all other values are the same as before. Openings in the tension zone—Openings in the tensi zone are ignored since the tensile strength of the concrete i neglected and the bars cut by the openings are replaced atthe sides of the openings. 4 Openings in he compression zone—Openings in the com pression zone are ignored in calculations of the forces in thi compression reinforcement only, since the cut bars are rs placed at the sides of the openings. Vertical temperature stresses in reinforcement effect on, Joy tensile temperature stress in outside steel Fay © compressive temperature stress in inside steel Saad fi a service loads 2-1 pty) 14% = ratio, outside steel area to total steel area pdty) 14m ati. inside steel area to total stee! area F (0) = load factor for temperature combined with W of E Atultimate, efect on §, on windward side Usable yield force = yield force ~ F,(v) + tensile force in outside steel + Fv) + compressive force in inside steel Dividing by total tee! area, A,[REINFORCED CONCRETE CHIMNEYS COMMENTARY therefore FOah- Inis conservative and convenient to use the same value for ‘on the leeward side as well. Vertical temperature stresses in concrete effect on! “Feru = concrete compressive stress due to temperature alone at service loads ‘Atuliimate, effect on FEO) = L5 ~ BI Sony Design capacity for circumferentia! bending (com- pression on inside) Inside Face Gi- Ya) STRAIN DIAGRAM , Gh ht. a & fg Ke TO atty Ra Fat LOAD DIAGRAM 307R-11 LO ~ 1S for combination with temperature IMO) =I! = 105f Ee (p' —-= ratio outside steel area to total area ‘Y, = ratio inside steel area to outside steel area er area outside steel, in. ‘o'r = are inside sce, ‘Stress in compression steel fig = lB) - 0 ~ WI, 0.0038, «iB, fog 222 B=. 0.0036, 5 510 Stress in tensile steel Sys = — R= @/B) _. 0.0038, 2B, Sys = B= 4 0.0038, sft) (4-2) Load in compression stee! Pes = Ses YP" waa Load in tensile steel Pes = Int (ad) Load in concrete compression block Pca = O85flea (as) BV HOP yt Pes Py 0 (M6) Fing the value of a which satisfies this equation EM about Pag M, = Pea Lys ~ Cal) + Pesl2¥e ~ Ue (ar) Myx = OM, M, ‘Note: for compression on outside SHO =f therefore ignore temperature. Eq, (A-3) becomes Pes = fesp't and Eq, (A-4) becomes Pre = frstsor? APPENDIX B—DERIVATION OF EQUATIONS FOR, TEMPERATURE STRESSES CRT ' Gre eet An/in (MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE | €*sevn fsov/n Fory__| ‘re ‘The equations for maximum vertical stresses in concrete and stcel due to a temperature drop only, across the concrete wall with two layers of reinforcement, are derived as follows. Unrestrained rotation caused by a temperature differential of: T, 6, = a,7,1 ‘Since rotation is prevented, strains and corresponding. stresses are caused: In concrete (inside) 6 = Oct = aT {In outside reinforcement «= 8% OF Faw = yO ~ OTE, ratio of total area of vertical outside face rein- forcement to total area of concrete chimney shell at section under consideration. ‘afio of inside face vertical reinforcement area to outside face vertical reinforcement area fy Kale aye - 1+ y) Tak, Fore BV = 0. fey (C2) + Seyipt = SerPt ce Steet Rati Steet Ratio P OTE, (C112) + a, ( ~ 1 + 4) T.AE, 1 0t = 4,0) — Tin pt + nype + Anyp (7, — 1) + 2npe ~ npr, = 0 ° + Qo dy + Ne + 2pm ly, % — D-H C+ only + De = 2onty + ¥ - nd = 0 c= p(y tt View, + DP + 2on ly, + HO = yD ‘The derivation forthe equations for the maximum hori- zontal stresses in concrete and steel due to a temperature ‘rop only, across the conerete wall with two layers of rein- forcement, is similar to that for the vertical temperature stresses Replace p with p’ % with ¥ Seo With fine then Src = 8,05 ~ CITE, C= pay t+ (p'n(y, + DP + 2p'nly, + 0 — Fa APPENDIX C—REFERENCES: |. Hollis, S. C., "The Enginerng lnerpretaton of Weather Breau Records for Wind Loading on Sites,” Wind Loads on Budungs ond Srucars, Building Science Seces No. 30, Nationa Boreas of Sundards Weshingion, D.C. 1968, pp. 151-168.2. Vikery, Bary J. “On the Reliability of Gust Loading Factor,” ‘tnd Loads on Buléings and Siractures, Bulding Scence Seves No. 30, [Rodoal Buea of Standards, Washingon, D.C, 1989, pp. 93-104 Sickery, B. J. and Basu, R. 1, "Simplified Approhes 10 the ‘Balintion ofthe Across Wind Response of Chimneys," Journal of Wind ing ond Industrial Aerodyeamies(Aesertam), V. V4, 1985, Pp 153166 “f Rumman, Wad S. “Reinforced Concrete Chimneys.” Handbook ‘of Coneee Engineering, Zod Edition, Mack Fil, Eater, Van Noswand eiboldCo., New York, 1985, pp. 365-586. 5, Bas, RL, “Acros. Wind Responses of Slender Structures of CGrclar Cross-Section to Atmospheric Turbulence,” PRD thesis, Feuly of Enpieering Science, University of Wester Ontusio, London, 1982, “6, Vickery, Band Batu, RL, ~The Retponte of Reinforced Cconerete Chimneys to Vortex Shedding.” Entinecring Structures (Guilford, V. 6, No. 4, Oct. 1984, pp. 324.303. "7, Dienpont, Alan. "Gust Loading Factor,” Proceedings, ASCE, ¥.93, $T3, Jone 1967, pp 1-36 "Simo, Emil Maral, Richard ; and be, Sep mou, “Esme tion of Along: Wind Building Response,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 103, S17, July 1977. pp. 1325-1338 9, Rummas, Wadi S., "Modal Charscrstics of Lineatly Tapered Relaforced Conerete Chimneys.” ACI JOURNAL. Proceedings V. 82, No. 4. duly Aug, 1985, pp. 53153. 10. Vickery, B.J., and Basu, R. 1, “Across-Wind Vibrations of Sie tures of Circular Cross-Section —Phrt |," Journal of Wind Enginering (nd Indus Aerodynamics (Amsterdam), V, 12,0. 1, 1983, pp 49-73 1H Basu, RL, and Vickery, B. J, "Across: Wind Vibrations of Ste tues of Crculer CrostSection—Part 2.” Journal af Wind Enginering (nd Indusial Aerodynamics, V_12, NO. |. 198), 9p. 75-97 12. Ziewhokvich, M_M. "Review of Fow Interference Effects Be- tween Two Cylinders in Various Arangemens." Jounal of Flids En sicerig, V.99, 1977, p 618 13. Vickery, . of redicing te Response of Chinseyso Vertex Shedding ‘Sracures (Guildford), V8, No.4, Oct. 19K4, pp. 363-368. ‘REINFORCED CONCRETE CHIMNEYS COMMENTARY mO7R-13 14, Ruscheveyh, H., “Problems with In-Line Stacks: Experence with Fall Scale Objet,” Enginering Sractures(Gilord, V.8, No 4, Oct. 1984, pp, 300343, 15. Dryden, Hugh H.. and Hil. George C. “Wind resture on Circular Cylinders ané Chirneys," Research Paper No. 221, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 1930, Also, NBS Journal of Research. V5, Sept. 1930, 16, ASCE Task Commitee on Wind Forces, “Wind Forces or Sts: ures." Transactions, ASCE, V.126, Par I, 1961, pp. 1124-1198 17. Okameto, T, and Yagia, M.. “The Experimental Investigation Flow Pasta cular Cylinder of Finite Length Placed Norra oa Uniform Se,” Buletin, Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers (Tokyo), No, 16, 1973, p03 1, Unjorm Building Code, Imeruationsl Conference of Building Off 1982, 780 pp. ‘Buidings and Oer Stace.” (ANSI ASS, 1-1982), American National Sundar Tosi, New Yor, 1982, 103 pp. 20, “Tenaive Provisions for the Development of Seamic Regulations for Buildings,” NBS Special Publication No. $10 (ATC 3-06) Applied ‘Technology Counci/Natons! Bueas of Standards, Washington, D.C. une 1978, 505 pp 21. Task Commits on Stel Chimney Liners, Design and Consruction of Sieel Chimney Liner, Amesican Society of Civil Enginers, New York, 1995. 226 p. 22, Moka, amit A... nd Rumnan, Wadi S., “Uline Capacity ‘of Reinforced Coneete Members of Holow Circular Sections Subjected 0 Monotonic and Cyclic Bending.” ACI JOURNAL. Proceedings V. 32. NO 5, Sept-Oct. 1985, pp. 653456 13, Rumman, Wadi Sand Sun, Ru-Teong, “Unimate Strength Design of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys,” ACI Jounwat, Proceedings V_ 74, No.4, Ape 1977 pp. 179-184 24, Hoprestad, Evin “A Study of Combined Bending and Axil Loud in Reinforced Coscrte Members,” Bullen No. 399, Engineering Exper- men Suation, Univesity of Mois, Urbana, 1951, 128 pp.307R-16 ‘Toconvert rom ach foot nad leo). Square inch square oot squire yet lle ‘vb inch cub fot cube ya gga force Lipforce pound force Nilogamforesquare mete frcelsquare inch (ks). sewonaquare meter (Ni) pousd-freehquare foot ouna-orcerguae inch (oi) inch pound force Toot pound free meer Silogra force ‘amee-massaiedopois. ourd-mas(oidupos) tom meee) sam short, 2000 fm) pound.mascubic fot ound-mascubi ard ound:massgalion eg Fabre) MANUAL OF CONCRETE PRACTICE CONVERSION FACTORS—INCH-POUND TO SI (METRIC)* o mutity by Length rile men) ase smeertm) ‘03088, meer) copes bilometr them) 169 Are ‘square centimeter (om?) eas square meer) o0n29 square eer) 08361 Volume (capacity) + eubl cersimeter cm) ws cubic meter ht 003785 “abiceemimeter (em) isa eabie neem). ‘00232 cubic meter mt 0766 Force newton) n07 rentontN) a seston) aut Preseure or stress (orca per area) pascal Pa) 9807 ‘megapascal MPa) ows pascal (Pa) owe pel aras ilopascal a) 6995 ‘Bending moment or torque rewton meter Ni) ouno newton meer Nm) 1336 sewtonmeter (Nn) 9407 Mass gamig) m4 ogra) 04536 ‘meqagran Mp) 1.0008 smegagram (Mg) 09072 Maus per volume Silograubic meter Cy) r602 Ailogranveubie mete (km 5933 ogramubie meter Cam 9 ‘Temperatures eg Cesins wey e ‘deg Faberhe(F) ee Late + 32 eg Celie (C) re ct put cepa otf tty Pecan ef sear areata td wet ey, Ths “egan eanmees, rir abe eee equ 0.01 me The uation one one emp ean stain hme stecoce pena om Faeroe Sepa Chae dope nae ‘pemsuchange ib Forla's = Wey Fi Shane tom Oe Pon