3 Suka0 Tidak suka

344 tayangan95 halamanBy Prashanth N

Mar 09, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

By Prashanth N

© All Rights Reserved

344 tayangan

By Prashanth N

© All Rights Reserved

- Analysis of Jacketed Reinforced Concrete Column
- My Final year Project
- Design and Analysis of Shell structures
- Modelling of concrete using abaqus- nonlinear analysis
- Review of Elastic Analysis of Box Girder Bridges
- A Finite Element Study of the Multi Layered Structured Dental Post
- Desiga of Steel Structures
- theory of elasticity Lecture Notes - Dr V S Reddy
- Anna university Fea question paper
- Cooling Tower Fundamentals
- IS 1893 (Part-4) 2015 (1)
- Logan5eChapter1
- Lui, Y - Finite Element Methods Lectures [Uni of Cincinnati]
- Design Optimization of Rigid Metal Containers
- coursework.docx
- On Teaching Finite Element Method in Plasticity With Mathematica
- Static and Dynamic Analysis of Hyperbolic Cooling Tower_2014
- What can go wrong with finite element analysis
- theory of elasticity notes
- FEA Question bank Mechanical Engineering

Anda di halaman 1dari 95

RCC SHELL THICKNESS

DISSERTATION:

Submitted to Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

IN

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

By:

PRASHANTH .N

USN: 1GC11CSE05

Under the Guidance of:

SAYEED SULAIMAN

Assistant Professor

Dept of Civil Engineering, G.C.E,

Ramanagaram-571511

GHOUSIA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

RAMANAGARAM-571511

2012-2013

SYNOPSIS:

Natural draught cooling towers are very common in modern day thermal and nuclear power

stations. These towers with very small shell thickness are exceptional structures by their

sheer size and sensitivity to horizontal loads. This paper deals with to study the effect of

seismic and wind loads on hyperbolic cooling of varying dimensions and rcc shell thickness.

For the purpose of comparison an existing cooling tower is consider as reference, (BTPS,

Karnataka).For other models the dimensions and rcc shell thickness is varied with respect to

reference cooling tower.

Bellary thermal power station is a power generating unit near kudithini village in Bellary

taluk, Bellary district and karnataka state. Basic wind speed is 39 m/sec, risk co-efficient

factor K1 shall be taken as 1.06, terrain category shall be 2 and corresponding values shall be

taken for K2, risk co-efficient factor K3 shall be taken as 1.0. The seismic zone is zone III,

importance factor (I) is 1.5.

The boundary condition of the cooling tower has been top end free and bottom end is fixed.

The material properties of the cooling tower have young modulus 31GPa, Poisson Ratio 0.15

and density of RCC 25 Kg/m3. These cooling towers have been analyzed for seismic & wind

loads using Finite Element Analysis (ANSYS v.10). The seismic load will be carried out for

0.5g, 0.6g& 0.7g in accordance with IS: 1893 (part 1)-2002 and by modal analysis and wind

loads on these cooling towers have been calculated in the form of pressures by using the

design wind pressure coefficients as given in IS: 11504-1985 code along with the design

wind pressures at different levels as per IS: 875 (Part 3) - 1987 code. The analysis has been

carried out using 8-noded 93 Shell Element.

The out come & result are Max Deflection, Max Principal Stress & Strain, Max Von mises

Stress & Strain are mapped & tabulated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This satisfaction and euphoria that accompany the successful completion of any task would

be but incomplete without mentioning the names of the people who made it possible, whose

constant guidance and encouragement crowned the efforts with success.

I convey my regard to SAYEED SULAIMAN, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil

Engineering, GCE, for his valuable insights and suggestions offered during the course of the

Project work.

I express my deep gratitude to Dr. MOHAMED ILYAS ANJUM, Vice principal, Prof. &

HOD, Department of Civil Engineering, GCE for providing support and encouragement.

I express my thanks to Dr. MOHAMED HANEEF, Principal, for providing congenial

atmosphere to work in.

I express my thanks to PRAKASH, Chief Engineer, and KPCL for providing data to our

Project work.

I express my thanks to KIMDHASAIAH, Executive Engineer, and KPCL for helping to our

project work.

I express my thanks to Sunil Reddy for Guidance of ANSYS Software to our project work.

I also thank full to our Family and Friends. Their Constant faith in our sincerity has helped

us to stay confident in the entire course of the project.

I thank all the Teaching Staff, Supporting Staff who have directly or indirectly helped us in

successful completion of our project work.

PRASHANTH N

CONTENTS:

Abstract

List of Tables

iv

List of Figures

Abbreviations

viii

1.1 General Introduction

1.8 Objective

2.1 Introduction

10

10-13

3.1 General Introduction

14

15

17

4.1 FEA Program

18

20

20

21

22

ii

5.1 Shell 93: Description

26

26

28

29

6.1 Description of Geometry of cooling tower

30

35

40

49

7.1 Static analysis

52

55

57

63

66

67

REFERENCES

68

APPENDIX B- Geometrical drawing of BTPS

APPENDIX C- IS Codes

1. IS: 11504:1985., Criteria for structural design of reinforced concrete natural draught

cooling tower, New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian standards.

2. IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 Criteria for earthquake resistant design structure.

3. IS: 875 (Part3):1987. Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake loads)

for buildings and structures. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.

iii

LIST OF TABLES:

Table 5.1: Shell 93 real constants

28

31

Table 6.2: Input geometry values to create model in ANSYS for CT1

32

Table 6.3: Input geometry values to create model in ANSYS for CT2

33

Table 6.4: Input geometry values to create model in ANSYS for CT3

34

37

38

39

Table 6.8: Result of variation hourly mean wind speed with height for CT1

41

Table 6.9: Result of variation hourly mean wind speed with height for CT2

42

Table 6.10: Result of variation hourly mean wind speed with height for CT3

42

45

45

46

47

48

48

55

57

59

61

63

65

iv

LIST OF FIGURES:

Fig1.1: Group of cooling towers

15

19

23

26

30

37

39

40

52

52

52

52

53

53

Static analysis:

Fig7.7: Deflection for CT1

53

54

54

54

54

Modal Analysis:

Fig7.12: Deflection for CT1

55

56

56

56

56

Fig7.17: Deflection for CT1

57

58

58

58

58

Fig7.22: Deflection for CT1

59

60

60

60

60

Fig7.27: Deflection for CT1

61

62

62

62

62

vi

Wind Analysis:

Fig7.32: Applied wind pressure for CT1

63

64

64

64

65

65

vii

ABBREVIATIONS

For the purpose of this standard, the following letter symbols shall have the meaning indicated

against each:

natural draught cooling towers

rth= throat radius

rth/b= slope of the asymptote of the generating hyperbola

D= base diameter at basin sill level

Ee= modulus of elasticity of concrete (short term modulus)

Fn= Fourier coefficient of nib term

d = thickness of the shell

H= total tower height above basin sill level

M= meridional moment per unit length of the middle surface

M= circumferential moment per unit length of the middle surface

M, M= twisting moments per unit length of the middle surface

n= nth harmonic

N= meridional stress resultant per unit length of middle surface

Ne= circumferential stress resultant per unit length of middle surface

N, N = shearing stress resultants per unit length of middle surface

p'= design wind pressure coefficient

p= a constant reference load intensity per unit area of middle surface

per= critical buckling pressure

P, P, Pz =load components per unit area of middle surface

Q, Q = transverse shear stress resultants per unit length of middle surface

R0= horizontal radius

r b = base radius

Hb= vertical distance from the throat to basin sill level

viii

r t= top radius

Ht= vertical distance from the throat to the top of the shell

Y= vertical coordinates

<f>= angle between vertical and the normal to an element of the shell

= the circumferential angle

= Poisson's ratio of concrete

IS 875 (part 3)-1987: Code of practice design loads (other than earthquake)

A = surface area of a structure or part of a structure

Ae= effective frontal area

Az = an area at height z

b= breadth of a structure or structural member normal to the wind stream. in the horizontal

plane

Ct=

Cfn=

C't=

Cp=

pressure coefficient

Cpe=

CPt=

D=

diameter of cylinder

F=

Fn=

normal force

Ft=

transverse force

F'-=

frictional force;

hx = height of development of a velocity profile at a distance x down wind from a change in

terrain category

k1, k2, k3 = Multiplication factors

ix

K= Multiplication factor

l = length of the member or greater horizontal dimension of a building

pa = design wind pressure

pz = design wind pressure at height z

pe = external pressure

p1= internal pressure

Re = Reynolds number

Vb = regional basic wind speed

Vz = design wind velocity at height z

x = distance down wind from a change in terrain category

= wind angle from given axis

= inclination of the roof to the horizontal

= effective solidity ratio

= solidity ratio

z = a height or distance above the ground

= average height of the surface roughness

structures

Ah= Design horizontal seismic coefficient

Ak =Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value for mode k of vibration

bi = ith Floor plan dimension of the building perpendicular to the direction of force

c =Index for the closely-spaced modes

d = Base dimension of the building, in meters, in the direction in which the seismic force is

considered.

DL = Response quantity due to dead load

edi = Design eccentricity to be used at floor i calculated as per 7.8.2

esi = Static eccentricity at floor i defined as the distance between centre of mass and center of

rigidity

x

ELx = Response quantity due to earthquake load for horizontal shaking along x-direction

ELy = Response quantity due to earthquake load for horizontal shaking along y-directicn

ELz = Response quantity due to earthquake load for vertical shaking along z-direction

Froof = design lateral forces at the roof due to all modes considered

Fi= Peak lateral forces at the floor i due to all modes considered

g = Acceleration due to gravity

h = Height of structure, in meters

I = Importance factor

Mk = Modal mass of mode k

n = Number of storeys

Pk =Modal participation factor of mode k

Qi = Lateral force at floor i

Qik = Design lateral force at floor i in mode k

,-

R = Response reduction factor

Sa/g = Average response acceleration .coefficient for rock or soil sites as given by Figure 2

and Table 3 based on appropriate natural periods and damping of the structure

T = Undamped natural period of vibration of the structure (in seconds)

Ta = Approximate fundamental period (in seconds)

Tk = Undamped natural period of mode k of vibration (in seconds)

VH = Design seismic base shear

VB = Design base shear calculated using the approximate fundamental period Ta

Vi = Peak storey shear force in storey i due to all modes considered

VA = Shear force in storey i in mode k

y = Peak storey shear force at the roof due to al! modes considered

W = Seismic weight of the structure

Wi = Seismic weight of floor i

Z = Zone factor

ik = Mode shape coefficient at floor i in mode k

xi

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

CHAPTER-1

TOWER:

1.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION:

Hyperbolic cooling towers are large, thin shell reinforced concrete structures which

contribute to environmental protection and to power generation efficiency and reliability.

Hyperbolic reinforced concrete cooling towers are widely used for cooling large quantities of

water in thermal power stations, refineries, atomic power plants, steel plants, air conditioning

and other industrial plants. Natural-draught cooling towers are used in nuclear power plants

as heat exchangers. These shell structures are submitted to environmental loads such as

seismic and thermal gradients that are stochastic in nature. Due to the complexity of the

building procedure, uncertainties in the material properties as well as differences between the

theoretical and the real geometry also exist. A series of a hyperbolic cooling tower as shown

in Fig1.1

Figure 1.2 summarizes the historical development of natural draft cooling towers. Technical

cooling devices first came into use at the end of the 19th century. The well-known hyperbolic

shape of cooling towers was introduced by two Dutch engineers, Van Iterson and Kuyper,

who in 1914 constructed the first hyperboloid towers which were 35 m high. Soon, capacities

and heights increased until around 1930, when tower heights of 65 m were achieved. The

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE

Page 1

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

first such structures to reach higher than 100 m were the towers of the High Marnham Power

Station in Britain. Todays tallest cooling towers, located at several EDF nuclear power

Plants in France, reach heights of about 170 m. And it is predicted that 200 m high towers

will be constructed in the early 21st century.

This section describes the two main types of cooling towers: the natural draft and mechanical

draft cooling towers.

The natural draft or hyperbolic cooling tower makes use of the difference in temperature

between the ambient air and the hotter air inside the tower. As hot air moves upwards

through the tower (because hot air rises), fresh cool air is drawn into the tower through an air

inlet at the bottom. Due to the layout of the tower, no fan is required and there is almost no

circulation of hot air that could affect the performance. Concrete is used for the tower shell

with a height of up to 200 m. These cooling towers are mostly only for large heat duties

because large concrete structures are expensive. There are two main types of natural draft

towers:

Page 2

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

1. Cross flow tower (Figure 1.3): air is drawn across the falling water and the fill is

located outside the tower

2. Counter flow tower (Figure 1.4): air is drawn up through the falling water and the fill

is therefore located inside the tower, although design depends on specific site

conditions.

Because of their huge shape, construction difficulties and cost, natural draft towers have been

replaced by mechanical draft towers in many installations. Mechanical draft towers have

large fans to force or draw air through circulated water. The water falls downwards over fill

surfaces, which helps increase the contact time between the water and the air. Cooling rates

of mechanical draft towers depend upon various parameters; such as fan diameter and speed

of operation, fills for system resistance, etc. There are two different classes of mechanical

draft cooling towers:

1. Forced draft:

2. Induced draft:

Page 3

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

TOWER:

The most prominent component of a natural draft cooling tower is the huge, towering shell.

This shell is supported by diagonal, meridional, or vertical columns bridging the air inlet.

The columns, made of high-strength reinforced concrete, are either prefabricated or cast in

situ into moveable steel forms. After the erection of the ring of columns and the lower edge

member, the climbing formwork is assembled and the stepwise climbing construction of the

cooling tower shell begins (Figure 1.5). Fresh concrete and reinforcement steel are supplied

to the working site by a central crane anchored to the completed parts of the shell, and are

placed in lifts up to 2 m high (Figure 1.6). After sufficient strength has been gained, the

complete forms are raised for the next lift to enhance the durability of the concrete and to

provide sufficient cover for the reinforcement; the cooling tower shell thickness should not

be less than 16 to 18 cm. The shell itself should be sufficiently stiffened by upper and lower

edge members. In order to achieve sufficient resistance against instability, large cooling

tower shells may be stiffened by additional internal or external rings. These stiffeners may

also serve as a repair or rehabilitation tool.

Page 4

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Cooling tower structures are constructed using a variety of materials. While package cooling

towers are generally constructed with fiber glass, galvanized steel or stainless steel in special

situation, many possibilities exits for field erected structure. Field erected towers can be

constructed of redwood, fiber glass, steel or concrete. Each material has advantage &

disadvantage.

1. Galvanized steel :

The most cost-effective material of construction for packaged tower in G-235 hot dip

galvanized steel, from both structural & corrosion resistance stand point. G-235 is the

heaviest galvanizing mill commercially available and offers a substantial amount of

protection as compared to the lighter zinc thickness used several decades ago, providing

reliable corrosion protection for most HVAC and industrial system water chemistries. The

most common upgrade from G-235 galvanized steel in type 304 stainless steel. Parts that are

submerged during operation and at shutdown can benefit the most by upgrading to stainless

steel.

2. Stainless steel:

Type 304 stainless steel construction is recommended for cooling tower that are to be used in

a highly corrosive environment.

3. Concrete Towers:

Large field erected towers for power plant and refinery applications are constructed of

concrete. Concrete towers will last more than 40 yrs, but they are the most expensive to

build, because of their cost. They represent only 2-3% of all field erected towers some times

concrete construction is also used for architectural reasons (where the tower is disguised to

look like or blend with a building) or the cooling towers is designed as a structure with a life

expectancy equal to the facility it serves.

Page 5

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

4. Fiber Reinforced plastic towers:

Currently the first growing segment of the cooling tower market is structure built with

pultruded FRP sections. This inert inorganic material is strong, light weight, chemically

resistant and able to handle a range of PH values fire-retardant.FRP can eliminate the cost of

a fire protection system, which can equal 5-12% of the cost of a cooling tower.

TOWER:

1. Dead load

2. Wind load

3. Earthquake forces

4. Thermal resistant loads

5. Construction loads

6. Any other loads such as snow loads, foundation settlement etc

1. Size and shape: The base diameter, air intake, opening height, tower height

and throat diameter are basically designed by thermal consideration

2. Spacing: It is recommended that cooling towers in group be spaced at clear

distance of not less than 0.5 times the base diameter of the largest cooling

tower in the group.

3. Tower shell analysis: This shall be in accordance with general accepted

principles of structural mechanics and sound engineering practices.

The following stipulations are made:

Analysis shall be as per the accepted theories of elasticity

applicable to thin shell of revolution.

For elastic analysis concrete may be assumed to be un-cracked,

homogeneous and isotropic.

Attention in drawn to the possibility of Wind induced

vibrations in the shell.

Page 6

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

each direction shall be as follows;

1. 0.35 percent of gross cross sectional area when mild steel bars are used.

2. 0.25 percent when cold worked steel high strength deformed bars are used.

The maximum spacing shall be restricted to twice the thickness of the shell in either

direction. It is preferable to provide reinforcement at both the faces of the shell. For shells of

175mm thick and above two layers of reinforcement should invariably provide.

2. Light weight, high strength may reduce support requirements

3. Corrosion resistant a good match for the cooling tower environment

4. Long-lasting lower lifetime cost than traditional building materials

5. Easy fabrication weighs less to transport and is quick and easy to install

6. Nonconductive and non sparking wont conduct electricity and contains no metal.

7. Proven performance Bedford has developed several proprietary glass, pigment and

resin systems for the cooling tower industry

8. Low thermal conductivity does not easily conduct heat or cold

9. Industry commitment Bedford is a member of the Cooling Technology Institute

For the purpose of comparison an existing cooling tower is consider, (BTPS, Karnataka).

Bellary thermal power station is a power generating unit near kudithini village in Bellary

taluk, Bellary district, and Karnataka state. BTPS is geographically located at 1501158 N

latitude and 7604323 E longitude. The total height of the tower is 143.5 m. The tower has a

base, throat and top radii of 55 m, 30.5 m and 31.85 m respectively, with the throat located

107.75 m above the base. It has a shell-wall thickness of 200 mm at throat level.Basic wind

speed is 39 m/sec, risk co-efficient Factor K1 shall be taken as 1.06, Terrain category shall be

2 and corresponding values shall be taken for K2, risk co-efficient Factor K3 shall be taken

as 1.0. The seismic zone is zone-III, importance factor (I) is 1.5.

Page 7

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

1.8 OBJECTIVE:

1. To analyze the hyperbolic cooling tower by using finite element analysis (FEA).

2. For the purpose of comparison an existing tower should be considering, bellary

thermal power plant (details from KPCL, Bangalore) and studied the seismic and

wind loads of hyperbolic cooling tower.

3. For other models dimensions and rcc shell thickness is varied with respect to

reference tower.

4. Analysis has been carried out using 8 noded 93 shell elements using ANSYS V.10.

5. The out come of result is Max deflection, Max Principal stress & strain & Von mises

stress & strain.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION OF HYPERBOLIC COOLING TOWER

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3: REINFORCED CONCRETE SHELL

CHAPTER 4: INTRODUCTION TO FEM PACKAGE USED ANSYS

CHAPTER 5: DETAILS OF ELEMENT UTILIZED FOR THIS ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS PROCEDURE AND CALCULATION

Page 8

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

CHAPTER 7: TABULATION AND RESULTS

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSSION

CHAPTER 9: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A: JOURNAL PAPER

APPENDIX B: GEOMETRIC DRAWING OF BTPS

APPENDIX C:

1) IS: 11504:1985., Criteria for structural design of reinforced concrete natural draught

cooling tower, New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian standards.

2) IS: 875 (Part3):1987. Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake loads)

for buildings and structures. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.

3) IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 Criteria for earthquake resistant design structure.

Page 9

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

CHAPTER-2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

2.1 INTRODUCTION:

The field of finite element analysis of shells and shell structures has been very widely researched

consequently enormous literature was available regarding various aspects of their behavior. It

would be impossible to cover all such publications; therefore some selected segments of the

literature were presented herein by the way providing the literature survey. The important aspect

in such publications was concisely presented in the form of the abstracts of the subject matter

presented in such publications. Hence, it was opined that the listing of the abstracts of the

selected segment of the literature should serve the purpose of literature review adequately. The

Response of natural draught cooling tower to wind load.

Journal: ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, VOL. 7, NO. 1, JANUARY

2012 ISSN 1819-6608,

Author: G. Murali.

This paper deals with the study of two cooling towers of 122m and 200m high above ground

level. These cooling towers have been analyzed for wind loads using ANSYS software by

assuming fixity at the shell base. The wind loads on these cooling towers have been

calculated in the form of pressures by using the circumferentially distributed design wind

pressure coefficients as given in IS: 11504-1985 code along with the design wind pressures at

different levels as per IS:875 (Part 3)- 1987 code. The analysis has been carried out using 8noded shell element (SHELL 93) with 5 degrees of freedom per node.

The results of the analysis include: Membrane forces, Bending moments. The vertical

distribution of membrane forces and bending moments along 0 and 70 meridians and the

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE

Page 10

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

circumferential distributions at base, throat and top levels have been studied for both the

cooling towers. For circumferential distribution, non-dimensional values have been obtained

by normalizing the membrane forces and bending moments using the reference values at 0

meridian.

tower shell considering alternative supporting systems:

Author: Esmaeil Asadzadeh.

He studied the following kind of supports to the shell part of the tower. Such as Fixity at the

base, I type of column support at the base, V type of column support at the base. With a view

to compare the relative influence of the supports on the structural response offered by the

shell for available case history Finite Element Analysis employing higher order Mindlin

formulation have been undertaken. The comparison has been made of the self-weight

loading, static wind loading and pseudo static seismic activities the loads are calculated as

per the recommendation of relevant IS codes.

windstorm effects

Journal: Acta Polytechnica Vol. 46 No. 6/2006

Author: D. Makovicka,

The paper compares the RC structure of a cooling tower unit under seismic loads and under

strong wind loads. The calculated values of the envelopes of the displacements and the

internal forces due to seismic loading states are compared with the envelopes of the loading

states due to the dead, operational and live loads, wind and temperature actions. The seismic

effect takes into account the seismic area of ground motion 0.3g and the ductility properties

of a relatively rigid structure. The ductility is assessed as the reduction in seismic load.

Page 11

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

In this case the actions of wind pressure are higher than the seismicity effect under ductility

correction. The seismic effects, taking into account the ductility properties of the structure,

are lower than the actions of the wind pressure. The other static loads, especially temperature

action due to the environment and surface insulation are very important for the design of the

structure.

Journal: World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 60 2011.

Author: A. M. El Ansary

The aim of the current study is to develop a numerical tool that is capable of achieving an

optimum shape and design of hyperbolic cooling towers based on coupling a non-linear finite

element model developed in-house and a genetic algorithm optimization technique. The

objective function is set to be the minimum weight of the tower. The geometric modeling of

the tower is represented by means of B-spline curves. The finite element method is applied to

model the elastic buckling behavior of a tower subjected to wind pressure and dead load.

The study is divided into two main parts. The first part investigates the optimum shape of the

tower corresponding to minimum weight assuming constant thickness. The study is extended

in the second part by introducing the shell thickness as one of the design variables in order to

achieve an optimum shape and design. Design, functionality and practicality constraints are

applied.

under earthquake excitation.

Journal: Received: 8 September 2005; Received revised form: 17 January 2006; Accepted: 17

January 2006.

Author: Saeid Sabouri-Ghomi

This paper presents the results of a finite element investigation of a representative dry

cooling tower, using realistic horizontal and vertical acceleration data obtained from the

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE

Page 12

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

recent and widely-reported Tabas, Naghan and Bam earthquakes in Iran. The results of both

linear and nonlinear analyses are reported in the paper, the locations of plastic hinges within

the supporting columns are identified and the ramifications of the plastic hinges on the stability

of the cooling tower are assessed. It is concluded that for the (typical) cooling tower

configuration analysed, the columns that are instrumental in providing a load path are

influenced greatly by earthquake loading, and for the earthquake data used in this study the

representative cooling tower would be rendered unstable and would collapse under the

earthquake forces considered.

Journal: National seminar on Cooling tower, jan1990

Author: N.PRABHAKAR

The present day hyperbolic cooling towers are exceptional structures in view of their

sheer size and complexities. The towers involve considerable amount of design work on

structural aspect. Besides providing suitable structural profile to meet the functional needs, the

design requires consideration of external applied, ladings, both in static and dynamic. The Paper

describes briefly salient structural features and current practices adopted in the structural

design of hyperbolic cooling towers.

Cooling towers are undoubtedly exceptional structures which require special expertise both to

design and construct. Meridional form of the shell and proper assessment of wind loads are of

considerable importance in arriving at stress resultant values and buckling safety factors. As

the .structure is sensitive to wind loads, shell reinforcement must be provided ' on the basis of

limit state approach.

Page 13

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

CHAPTER-3

3.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION:

Though Lombart of France built out of steel mesh and concrete (reinforced concrete)

as early as in 1850, it was only just before World War I that reinforced concrete came in to

use. (It is interesting to note that prestressed concrete became popular after World War II.)

The aircraft hangar at Corley in France built by Fressinet around 1917 shown in fig 3.1 can

be considered as the first real reinforced concrete shell construction. It was in the form of

arches spaced at small spacing. The catnary shells spanned between the arches. The arches

were constructed from the ground (foundation) Level so that the reactions are taken by the

ground. These arches were connected together in the longitudinal direction by corrugations

(shells) as shown in fig 3.1

The mathematical theory of shells was not known to engineers till the membrane theory of

shells (usually credited to G.Lame and G.Clapeyorn) was published in 1828 (19th century).

However, it was only as late as in 1923, about 100 years later that dichinger and baversfeld

used the membrane theory to build a reinforced concrete dome over the design of shells.

Another dome that dichinger and baversfeld built is a hemispherical dome, only 30mm thick

and 16m in diameter. There is no horizontal reaction as the ends are in 90 but it develops

hoop tension below 52 which is resisted by steel reinforcement.

Engineers soon realized that reinforced concrete, unlike steel, can be made continuous and

used to cover space. Reinforced concrete has both strength and body and is a much superior

material to cover a large space in building construction. Steel and wood can be used as beams

and columns but not as slabs or shells. With prestressing, we can cover very large spaces.

This concept has encouraged the present use of shells for covering very large areas like

factories, hangars, assembly hall etc with rising cost of steel and concrete, shell construction

is bound to become popular for large span roofs.

Page 14

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

3.2.1 Thin shell:

1. Definition - A thin shell is a curved slab whose thickness h is small compared with its

other dimensions and compared with its principal radius of curvature.

2. Middle surface

The surface that bisects the shell is called the middle surface. It

specifies the form of this surface and the thickness h at every point.

3. Analysis of thin shells consists the following steps:

each adjacent element after deformation.

Page 15

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

1. The Kirchhoff-Love theory - The first-approximation of shells

Assumptions:

1) The shell thickness is negligibly small in comparison with the least radius of curvature of

the shell middle surface.

2) Strains and displacements that arise within the shells are small.

3) Straight lines that are normal to the middle surface prior to deformation remain straight

and normal to the middle surface during deformation, and experience no change in

length.(Analogous to Naviers hypothesis for beams - Bernoulli-Euler theory for beams)

4) The direct stress acting in the direction normal to the shell middle surface is negligible.

Results of the assumptions:

1) Normal directions to the reference surface remain straight and normal to the

deformed reference surface.

2) The hypothesis precludes any transverse-shear strain, i.e., no change in the right angle

between the normal and any line in the surface.

3) It is strictly applicable to thin shells.

4) It is not descriptive of the behavior near localized loads or junctions. (Assumption (4)

is not valid in the vicinity of concentrated transverse loads.

2. The Flugge-Byrne theory - The second-approximation of shells

Assumptions:

1) It adopts only assumption (2).

2) It is referred to as higher-order approximations of the Kirchhoff-Love assumptions

Page 16

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Classified by governing equation of geometry:

1. Paraboloid of revolution

2. Hyperboloid of revolution

3. Circular cylinder

4. Elliptic paraboloid

5. Hyperbolic paraboloid

6. Circular cone

Page 17

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

CHAPTER-4

4.1 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS PROGRAMS:

Computer implementation of finite elements and solution procedures for engineering

analysis is addressed. The end product is a general-purpose finite element analysis program.

For such software to be used as an effective CAE tool, the programming should be hardware

independent. The chosen finite elements and numerical methods must be accurate and reliable.

The program should be executable on a given platform of choice - single processor, multiprocessor, parallel processor, etc. A general purpose FEA program consists of three modules: a

preprocessor, a solver, and a postprocessor. Commercial FEA programs can handle very large

number of nodes and nodal degrees of freedom provided a powerful hardware is made available.

User's manual, theoretical manual, and verification problems manual, document a commercial

FEA program. Surveys of general-purpose programs for finite element analysis have been

published [3.1]. At present FEA programs are used rather than written. Understanding of the

organization, capabilities, and limitations of commercial FEA programs is generally more

important than an ability to develop or even modify a FEA code.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the organization and desirable capabilities of a

general-purpose FEA program. A brief description of widely distributed and extensively used

commercial FEA codes is included so that the reader is aware of their current capabilities.

Benchmark constitutes a standard set of test problems devised to assess the performance of FEA

codes. The practical issue of developing a viable FEA program and its implementation in the PC

environment is a much larger challenge. Typically, it involves hundreds of human year's effort.

The four components shown in Fig. 4.1 are common to virtually all general-purpose FEA

programs The INPUT phase enables the user to provide information relating to geometric

representation, finite element discretization, support conditions, applied loads, and material

properties. The more sophisticated commercial FEM systems facilitate automated generation of

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE

Page 18

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

nodes and elements and provide access to a material property database. Plotting of the finite

element model is also possible so that errors if any, in the input phase, may be delected and

corrected prior to performing computations. The finite element library comprises the element

matrix generation modules. Herein resides the coded formulative process for the individual

finite elements. Ideally, the element library is open-ended and capable of accommodating new

elements to any degree of complexity. This phase generates the required element matrices

and vectors.

The assembly module includes alt matrix operations necessary to position the element

matrices for connection to neighboring elements and the connection process itself. The latter

operation thereby produces the global matrix equation of the finite element model. The

solution phase operates on the governing matrix equation of the problem derived in the

previous phase. In the case of a linear static analysis, this may mean no more than the

solution of a set of linear algebraic equations for a known right-hand side. In the case of

linear vibration and buckling analysis, this may mean the extraction of Eigen values and

Eigen vectors. Transient response analysis will require computations over a time history of

applied load.

Finally, the results phase provides the analyst with a record of the solution. The record is

commonly a printed list of nodal d.a.f, element strains and stresses, reaction forces

corresponding to constrained degrees of freedom and a host of other requested

information. As in input phase, there is a trend toward graphical output of results such as

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE

Page 19

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

plots of displacement and stress contours, modes of vibration and buckling, etc. A

commercial FEM system therefore consists of three basic modules; pre-processor; solver;

and post-processor. These modules and their functions are illustrated in Fig. 9.2. The preprocessor allows the user to create geometry or input CAD geometry, and provides the

tools for meshing the geometry. The solver lakes the finite element mode! Provided by the

pre-processor and computes the required response. The post-processor takes the data from

the solver and presents it in a form that the user can understand.

To cover a large number of metallic and non-metallic materials and a wide range of their

behavior, a general-purpose FEA program should provide a library of material models:

1. Homogeneous, isotropic, linear, elastic

2. Ortho tropic

3. Anisotropic

4. Nonlinear elastic

5. Elastic plastic

6. Viscoelastic

7. Viscoplastic

8. Temperature-dependent material properties.

The available elements are for solid, structural, thermal and fluid flow analysis. They can be

classified as follows:

1. One-dimensional elements

1-D.2-D, 3-D bar elements

Linear/quadratic/cubic in order

2. Two-dimensional elements

Triangular/quadrilateral in shape

Linear/quadratic/cubic in order

With straight/curved edges

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE

Page 20

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

3. Axisymmetric ring elements

Triangular/quadrilateral in shape

Linear/quadratic/cubic in order

With flat/curved surfaces

4. Three-dimensional elements

Tetrahedra/hexahedra/pentahedra in shape

Linear/quadratic/cubic in order

With flat/curved faces

5. Beam elements

Euler-Bernouli theory/shear deformation theory

1-D, 2-D, 3-D beam elements

6. Plate elements

Kirchhoff theory/Mindlin theory

Triangular/quadrilateral shapes

Linear/quadratic/cubic in order

With straight-curved edges

7. Shell elements

Flat shell elements/facet approximation.

Curved shell elements: triangular/quadrilateral shapes; quadratic/cubic orders.

Axisymmetric shell elements: with curved surfaces; linear/quadratic/cubic in

order.

Some of these elements are formulated to handle large displacements, large rotations and

finite strains. Some formulations use reduced integration with hourglass control.

1. Linear static analysis

2. Linear dynamic analysis: Free vibration, mode superposition, response spectrum

Page 21

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

4.5

FEA PROGRAM:

1.

ANSYS

2.

MSC.Nastran

3.

NISA

4.

MARC

5.

LS-DYNA

ANSYS V.10 is an integrated design analysis tool based on the FEM developed by ANSYS,

Inc. It has its own tightly integrated pre- and post-processor. The ANSYS product

documentation is excellent and it includes commands reference; operations guide; modeling

and meshing guide; basic analysis procedures guide; advanced analysis guide; element

reference;

theory

reference;

structural

analysis

guide;

thermal

analysis

guide;

electromagnetic fields analysis guide; fluid dynamics guide; and coupled field analysis

guide. Taken together, these manuals provide descriptions of the procedures, commands,

elements, and theoretical details needed to use the ANSYS program. All of the above

manuals except the ANSYS theory reference are available online through the ANSYS help

system, which can be accessed either as a standalone system or from within the ANSYS

program. A brief description of the information found in each of the manuals follows.

Engineering capabilities of ANSYS products are: structural analysis (linear stress, nonlinear

stress, dynamic, buckling); thermal analysis (steady state, transient, conduction, convention,

radiation, and phase change); CFD analysis (steady state, transient, incompressible,

compressible, laminar, turbulent); electromagnetic fields analysis (Magnetostatics,

electrostatics); field and coupled field analysis (acoustics, fluid-structural, fluid-thermal,

magnetic-fluid, magnetic-structural, magnetic-thermal, piezoelectric, thermal-electric,

thermal-structural, electric-magnetic); sub-modeling; optimization; and parametric design

language.

Page 22

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Element library in ANSYS lists 189 finite elements, they are broadly grouped into: LINK,

PLANE, BEAM, SOLID, CONTAC, COMBIN, PIPE. MASS, SHELL, FLUID, SOURCE,

MATRIX, HYPER, VISCO, INFIN, INTER, SURF, etc. Under each type, different shapes

and orders complete the list. Obviously ANSYS has the best elements in its library.

Analysis procedures in ANSYS can be grouped into: static analysis; transient analysis;

mode frequency analysis; harmonic response analysis; buckling analysis; sub-structuring

analysis; and spectrum analysis.

Treatment of engineering problems basically contains three main parts: create a

model, solve the problem, analyse the results. ANSYS, like many other FE-programs, is also

divided into three main parts (processors) which are called preprocessor, solution processor,

postprocessor. During the analysis you will communicate with ANSYS via a Graphical User

Interface (GUI), which is described below and seen in Figure 4.3.

Page 23

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

1. Utility menu: Here you can access and adjust properties about your session, such as file

controls, listing and graphic controls.

2. Toolbar: Push buttons to commonly used commands.

3. Main menu: Here you can find the processors used when analyzing your problem.

4. Graphics window: In the graphics window your model is displayed: geometry, elements,

visualization of results and so forth.

5. Input window: You can type commands in the input window.

There are 3 step procedures to solve the problem in ANSYS:

4.5.2.1

PREPROCESSOR:

Within the preprocessor the model is set up. It includes a number of steps and usually in the

following order:

1. Build geometry: Depending on whether the problem geometry is one, two or three

dimensional, the geometry consists of creating lines, areas or volumes. These

geometries can then, if necessary, be used to create other geometries by the use of

Boolean operations. The key idea when building the geometry like this is to simplify

the generation of the element mesh. Hence, this step is optional but most often used.

Nodes and elements can however be created from coordinates only.

2. Define materials: A material is defined by its material constants. Every element has to

be assigned a particular material.

3. Generate element mesh: The problem is discretized with nodal points. The nodes are

connected to form finite elements, which together form the material volume.

Depending on the problem and the assumptions that are made, the element type has to

be determined. Common element types are truss, beam, plate, shell and solid

elements. Each element type may contain several subtypes, e.g. 2D 4-noded solid, 3D

20-noded solid elements. Therefore, care has to be taken when the element type is

chosen.

Page 24

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

The element mesh can in ANSYS be created in several ways. The most common way is that

it is automatically created, however more or less controlled. For example you can specify a

Certain number of elements in a specific area, or you can force the mesh generator to

maintain a specific element size within an area. Certain element shapes or sizes are not

recommended and if these limits are violated, a warning will be generated in ANSYS. It is up

to the user to create a mesh which is able to generate results with a sufficient degree of

accuracy.

4.5.2.2

SOLUTION:

Here you solve the problem by gathering all specified information about the problem:

1. Apply loads: Boundary conditions are usually applied on nodes or elements. The

prescribed quantity can for example be force, traction, displacement, moment,

rotation. The loads may in ANSYS also be edited from the preprocessor.

2. Obtain solution: The solution to the problem can be obtained if the whole problem is

defined.

4.5.2.3

GENERAL POSTPROCESSOR:

1. Visualize the results: For example plot the deformed shape of the geometry or

stresses.

2. List the results: If you prefer tabular listings or file printouts, it is possible.

Page 25

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

CHAPTER-5

ANALYSIS: SHELL93, 8-NODE STRUCTURAL SHELL.

5.1 SHELL93 ELEMENT DESCRIPTION:

SHELL93 is particularly well suited to model curved shells. The element has six

degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations

about the nodal x, y, and z-axes. The deformation shapes are quadratic in both in-plane

directions. The element has plasticity, stress stiffening, large deflection, and large strain

capabilities.

The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system for this element are shown in FIG5.1 the element is defined by eight nodes, four thicknesses, and the orthotropic material

properties. Midside nodes may not be removed from this element. A triangular-shaped

element may be formed by defining the same node number for nodes K, L and O. Orthotropic

material directions correspond to the element coordinate directions. The element coordinate

system orientation is as described in Coordinate Systems. The element x and y-axes are in the

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE

Page 26

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

plane of the element. The x-axis may be rotated an angle THETA (in degrees) toward the yaxis. The element may have variable thickness. The thickness is assumed to vary smoothly

over the area of the element, with the thickness input at the corner nodes. The thickness at the

Midside nodes is taken as the average of the corresponding corner nodes. If the element has a

constant thickness, only TK (I) need be input. If the thickness is not constant, all four

thicknesses must be input. If the total thickness of any shell element is greater than twice the

radius of curvature, ANSYS issues an error. If the total thickness is greater than one-fifth but

less than twice the radius of curvature, ANSYS issues a warning. ADMSUA is the added

mass per unit area.

Element loads are described in Node and Element Loads. Pressures may be input as surface

loads on the element faces as shown by the circled numbers on Figure 1: "SHELL93

Geometry". Positive pressures act into the element. Edge pressures are input as force per unit

length. Temperatures may be input as element body loads at the "corner" locations (1-8)

shown in Figure 1: "SHELL93 Geometry". The first corner temperature T1 defaults to

TUNIF. If all other temperatures are unspecified, they default to T1. If only T1 and T2 are

input, T1 is used for T1, T2, T3, and T4, while T2 (as input) is used for T5, T6, T7, and T8.

For any other input pattern, unspecified temperatures default to TUNIF. Only the lumped

mass matrix is available.

KEYOPT (8) = 2 is used to store midsurface results in the results file for single or multi-layer

shell elements. If you use SHELL, MID, you will see these calculated values, rather than the

average of the TOP and BOTTOM results. You should use this option to access these correct

midsurface results (membrane results) for those analyses where averaging TOP and

BOTTOM results is inappropriate; examples include midsurface stresses and strains with

nonlinear material behavior, and midsurface results after mode combinations that involve

squaring operations such as in spectrum analyses. A summary of the element input is given in

"SHELL93 Input Summary". A general description of element input is given in "SHELL93

Input Summary".

Page 27

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

1. Nodes: I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P

2. Degrees of Freedom: UX, UY, UZ, ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ

3. Real Constants: TK (I), TK (J), TK (K), TK (L), THETA, ADMSUA.

See Table 1: "SHELL93 Real Constants" for a description of the real constants.

4. Material Properties: EX, EY, EZ, ALPX, ALPY, ALPZ (or CTEX, CTEY, CTEZ or

THSX, THSY, THSZ), (PRXY, PRYZ, PRXZ or NUXY, NUYZ, NUXZ), DENS,

GXY, GYZ, GXZ, DAMP

5. Surface Loads: Pressures - Face 1 (I-J-K-L) (bottom, in +Z direction), face 2 (I-J-KL) (top, in -Z direction), face 3 (J-I), Face 4 (K-J), face 5 (L-K), face 6 (I-L)

6. Body Loads: Temperature T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8

7. Special Features: Plasticity, Stress stiffening, large deflection, large strain, birth and

death, Adaptive descent.

TABLE 5.1: SHELL93 Real Constants

Page 28

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

5.4.1 ASSUMPTION:

Zero area elements are not allowed. This occurs most often whenever the elements are not

numbered properly. Zero thickness elements or elements tapering down to a zero thickness at

any corner are not allowed. The applied transverse thermal gradient is assumed to vary

linearly through the thickness. Shear deflections are included in this element. The out-ofplane (normal) stress for this element varies linearly through the thickness. The transverse

shear stresses (SYZ and SXZ) are assumed to be constant through the thickness. The

transverse shear strains are assumed to be small in a large strain analysis. This element may

produce inaccurate stresses under thermal loads for doubly curved or warped domains.

5.4.2 RESTRICTIONS:

When used in the product(s) listed below, the stated product-specific restrictions apply to this

element in addition to the general assumptions and restrictions given in the previous section.

ANSYS Professional:

1. The DAMP material property is not allowed.

2. The special features allowed are stress stiffening and large deflection.

Page 29

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

CHAPTER 6:

6.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE GEOMETRY OF THE

COOLING TOWER:

For the purpose of comparison an existing cooling tower is consider, (BTPS, Karnataka). The

total height of the tower is 143.5 m. As shown in Fig. 6.2, the tower has a base, throat and top

radii of 55 m, 30.5 m and 31.85 m respectively, with the throat located 107.75 m above the

base. It has a shell-wall thickness of 200 mm at throat level and 500 mm at top. For other

models the dimensions and rcc shell thickness is varied with respect to reference tower.

Geometric details of models as shown in Table: 6.1. The boundary condition of the cooling

tower has been top end free and bottom end is fixed. The material properties of the cooling

tower have young modulus 31GPa, poission ratio 0.15 and density of rcc 25 Kg/m3.

Rt=31.85

35.75

Rthr=30.5

143.5

107.75

98.55

9.2

X

Rb=55

Page 30

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

CT 1: Bellary thermal power plant as reference tower.

CT 2: Decrease the dimensions & increase the thickness of cooling tower.

CT 3: Increase the dimensions & decrease the thickness of cooling tower.

Table 6.1: Geometric details of hyperbolic cooling towers

SI

no

Description

Parametric value

Symbols

CT1

(BTPS. Ref)

CT2

(decreased)

CT3

(increased)

Total height

143.5 m

136.2 m

150.67 m

Height of throat

Hthr

107.75 m

102.36 m

113.13 m

Diameter at top

Dt

63.6 m

60.5 m

66.8 m

Diameter at bottom

Db

110 m

104.5 m

115.5 m

Diameter at throat

Dthr

61 m

57.94 m

64 m

9.2 m

8.74 m

9.66 m

200mm

250mm

150mm

level

6

Column Height

Thickness at throat

Tthr

The geometry of the hyperboloid revolution:

.. (6.1)

In which Ro is the horizontal radius at any vertical coordinate, Y with the origin of

coordinates being defined by the center of the tower throat, ao is the radius of the throat & b

is some characteristic dimension of the hyperboloid.

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE

Page 31

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

The dimensions taken for CT2 & CT3 are satisfying the equation 6.1.

All calculation has been calculated using excel program.

1. CT 1: Bellary thermal power plant as reference tower.

At Bottom:

ao = 30.5 m

Ro=55 m

Y= -107.75 m

Substitute in equation 6.1 we get b=71.88 m

At Top:

ao = 30.5 m

Ro=31.85 m

Y= 35.75 m

Substitute in equation 6.1 we get b=119.166 m

Table 6.2: Input Geometry values to create model in ANSYS for CT1

Key

Points

X axis

(mm)

Y axis

(mm)

51800

98550

45200

78550

39350

58500

34650

38550

31500

18550

6

(origin)

7

30650

10000

30950

20000

551077

35750

Page 32

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

2. CT 2: Decrease the dimensions & increase the thickness of cooling tower.

At Bottom:

ao = 32.025 m

Ro=57.75 m

Y= -113.13 m

Substitute in equation 6.1 we get b=75.38 m

At Top:

ao = 32.025 m

Ro=33.44 m

Y= 37.53 m

Substitute in equation 6.1 we get b=124.87 m

Table 6.3: Input Geometry values to create model in ANSYS for CT2

Key

Points

X axis

(mm)

Y axis

(mm)

54474.91

103478

47859.34 83477.5

41932.86 63477.5

37027.84 43477.5

33354.71 23477.5

6

(origin)

7

32177.6

10000

32483.8

20000

33492.3

37530

Page 33

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

3. CT3: Increase the dimensions & decrease the thickness of cooling tower.

At Bottom:

ao = 28.975 m

Ro=52.975 m

Y= -102.36 m

Substitute in equation 6.1 we get b=68.2 m

At Top:

ao = 28.975 m

Ro=30.25 m

Y= 33.96 m

Substitute in equation 6.1we get b=113.235 m

Table 6.4: Input Geometry values to create model in ANSYS for CT3

Key

Points

X axis

(mm)

Y axis

(mm)

492113

93625

42637.7

73625

36859.2

53625

32305.3

33625

29547.7

13625

6

0

(origin)

7

29087.7

0

10000

29423.4

20000

30250.2

33960

Page 34

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

The seismic analysis will be carried out for 0.5g, 0.6g & 0.7g (g: Gravity acceleration 9810

KN/m2) in accordance with IS: 1893 by modal analysis of the hyperbolic cooling towers, the

earthquake analysis of the shell will be carried out by response spectrum method. Earthquake

analysis for the fill supporting structures (RCC frames) will be carried out by response

spectrum method. For the Calculation of the Design Spectrum, the following Factors were

considered as per IS 1893(Part I)-2002.

Zone factor: For Zone

Importance factor

Average response acceleration coefficient Sa/g =Soft soil site condition, as per clause 6.4.5,

pp16 IS 1893 (part 1):2002

For Soft soil sites

Sa/g

1+15T,

0.00T0.10

2.50

0.10T0.67

1.67/T

0.67T4.00

The design horizontal seismic coefficient Ah for a structure shall be determined by the

following expression: Maximum considered Earthquake (MCE) of 2% probability

. (6.2)

Provided that for any structure with T 0.1 s, the value of Ah will not be taken less than Z/2

whatever be the value of I/R.

Page 35

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Where

Z= Zone factor is for the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) and service life of

structure in a zone. The factor 2 in the denominator of Z is used so as to reduce the

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) zone factor to the factor for Design Basis

Earthquake (DBE).

I = Importance factor, depending upon the functional use of the structures,

characterized by hazardous consequences of its failure, post- earthquake functional

needs, historical value, or economic importance.

R= Response reduction factor, depending on the perceived seismic damage

performance of the structure, characterized by ductile or brittle deformations.

However, the ratio (I/R) shall not be greater than 1.0. The values of R for buildings

are given in the code.

Sa/g= Average response acceleration coefficient, In case design spectrum is

specifically prepared for a structure at a particular project site, the same may be used

for design at the discretion of the project authorities. For rock and soil sites and based

on appropriate natural periods and damping of the structure. These curves represent

free field ground motion.

The Design acceleration spectrum for vertical motions, when required, may be taken as twothirds of the design horizontal acceleration spectrum.

Note: All calculation has been calculated using excel program

Page 36

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

TABLE 6.5: Design spectrum for 0.5G

FREQUENCY

(HZ)

Ah

X &Z

Dircn

Ah

Z Dircn

0.25

0.0167

0.0111

0.33

0.0223

0.0148

0.5

0.0334

0.0223

0.0668

0.0445

1.33

0.0891

0.0594

1.54

0.1

0.0667

1.67

0.1

0.0667

10

0.1

0.0667

11.11

0.094

0.0627

12.5

0.088

0.0587

14.29

0.082

0.0547

16.67

0.076

0.0507

20

0.07

0.0467

25

0.064

0.0427

33.33

0.058

0.0387

40

0.055

0.0367

50

0.052

0.0347

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE

Page 37

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

TABLE 6.6: design spectrum for 0.6G

FREQUENCY

(Hz)

Ah

X&Z

DIRN

Ah

Y-DIRN

0.25

0.02

0.0134

0.33

0.0267

0.0178

0.5

0.0401

0.0267

0.0802

0.0534

1.33

0.1069

0.0713

1.54

0.12

0.08

1.67

0.12

0.08

10

0.12

0.08

11.11

0.1128

0.0752

12.5

0.1056

0.0704

14.29

0.0984

0.0656

16.67

0.0912

0.0608

20

0.084

0.056

25

0.0768

0.0512

33.33

0.0696

0.0464

40

0.066

0.044

50

0.0624

0.0416

Page 38

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

FREQUENCY

(Hz)

Ah

X&Z

DIRN

Ah

Y-DIRN

0.25

0.0234

0.0156

0.33

0.0312

0.0208

0.5

0.0468

0.0312

0.0935

0.0623

1.33

0.1247

0.0831

1.54

0.14

0.0933

1.67

0.14

0.0933

10

0.14

0.0933

11.11

0.1316

0.0877

12.5

0.1232

0.0821

14.29

0.1148

0.0765

16.67

0.1064

0.0709

20

0.098

0.0653

25

0.0896

0.0597

Page 39

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

33.33

0.0812

0.0541

40

0.077

0.0513

50

0.0728

0.0485

The wind pressure on the towers will be assessed on theoretical basis as given in IS 875

(part 3): 1987. The complete cooling tower will be designed for all possible wind

directions and on the basis of worst load conditions as obtained from the theoretical

methods. The wind pressure at a given height [Pz] will be computed as per the

stipulations of IS: 875 (part 3)-1987. For computing the design wind pressure at a given

height the basic wind speed (Vb) will be taken as Vb=39 m/s at 9.2m height above mean

ground level. For computing design wind speed (Vz) at a height z, the risk coefficient

K1=1.06 will be considered. For coefficient K2 terrain category 2 as per table 2 of IS: 875

(part-3)-1987 will be considered. The wind direction for design purpose will be the one

which world induces worst load condition. Coefficient K3 will be 1 for the tower under

consideration. The wind pressure at a given height wills b e computed theoretically in

accordance to the IS codal provision. Computation of wind pressure (Pz) along the wind

direction by Gust factor method.

Page 40

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

For estimating the wind load on the tower and other elements, will be based on IS: 875 (part3) 1987. Design of the tower will satisfy quasi-static method and GF method.

For the Calculation of the wind pressure, the following Factors were considered as per IS 875

(part 3)-1987.

Variation of Hourly mean wind speed with height: The variation of hourly mean wind speed

with height shall be calculated as follows:

Pz = 0.6 Vz2 N/m2. (6.3)

Vz =VbxK1 xK2 xK3 (6.4)

Where,

Vz = Hurly mean wind speed in m/s at height z,

Vb = Regional basic wind speed in m/s, 39m/s as per pp10, fig 1 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

K1 = Risk coefficient factor, as per clause 5.3.1, pp8 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

K2 = Terrain and height factor, from Table 33 IS 875 (part 3)-1987

K3 = Topography factor, as per clause 5.3.3, pp8 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

Table 6.8: Results of variation of hourly mean wind speed with height for CT1

H

Vb

K1

K2

K3

Vz

Pz(N/m2)

9.2

39

1.06

0.670

27.69

460.3

29.2

39

1.06

0.787

32.52

634.8

49.2

39

1.06

0.848

35.04

736.7

69.2

39

1.06

0.877

36.25

788.4

89.2

39

1.06

0.905

37.40

839.6

108.475

39

1.06

0.925

38.31

880.7

134.33

39

1.06

0.947

39.16

920.5

Page 41

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Table 6.9: Results of variation of hourly mean wind speed with height for CT 2

Height

Vb

K1

K2

K3

Vz

Pz(N/m2)

8.74

39

1.06

0.670

27.698

460.3

28.74

39

1.06

0.785

32.450

631.8

48.74

39

1.06

0.846

34.983

734.3

68.74

39

1.06

0.876

36.224

787.3

88.74

39

1.06

0.904

37.381

838.4

105.55

39

1.06

0.924

38.216

876.3

127.585

39

1.06

0.942

38.945

910.0

Table 6.10: Results of variation of hourly mean wind speed with height CT 3

Height

Vb

K1

K2

K3

Vz

Pz(N/m2)

9.66

39

1.06

0.670

27.698

460.3

29.66

39

1.06

0.789

32.602

637.7

49.66

39

1.06

0.850

35.119

740.0

69.66

39

1.06

0.878

36.277

789.6

89.66

39

1.06

0.906

37.434

840.8

109.66

39

1.06

0.928

38.352

882.5

121.39

39

1.06

0.937

38.740

900.5

141.1

39

1.06

0.953

39.392

931.0

Page 42

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Along wind load along wind load on a structure on a strip area (Ae) at any height (z) if

given by:

Fz= Cf Ae Pz G (6.5)

Where

Fz = along wind load on the structure at any height z corresponding to strip area Ae

Cf = Force coefficient for the building

Ae = Effective frontal area considered for the structure at height z

Pz = Design pressure at height z due to hourly mean wind obtained as 0.6* (Vz) 2 (N/m2)

G = Gust factor (peak load/mean load) and is given by

. (6.6)

Where

gf = peak factor defined as the ratio of the expected peak value to the root mean value of

afluctuating load, and

r = roughness factor which is dependent on the size of the structure in relation to the ground

roughness.

The, value of gf r is given in Fig. 1,

B = background factor indicating a measure of slowly varying component of fluctuating

wind load and is obtained from, from fig 9, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987

SE/ = measure of the resonant component of the fluctuating wind load,

S = size reduction factor, from fig 10, pp 51 IS 875 (part 3)-1987

Page 43

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

E = measure of available energy in the wind stream at the natural frequency of the structure,

from fig 11, pp52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987

= damping coefficient (as a fraction of critical damping) of the structure , from table 34

pp52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987

= And is to be accounted only for buildings less than 75 m high in terrain Category 4 and

for buildings .less than 25 m high in terrain Category 3, and is to be taken as zero in all other

cases.

Where, Cy= Lateral correlation constant which may be taken as 10 in the absence of more

precise load data,

Cz = longitudinal correlation constant which may be taken as 12 in the absence of more

precise load data,

b = breadth of a structure normal to the wind stream

h= height of a structure,

Vb = hourly mean wind speed at height t,

fo = natural frequency of the structure, and

Lh = a measure of turbulence length scale.

GUST FACTOR AND WIND PRESSURE CALCULATIONS:

1. CT 1: Bellary thermal power plant as reference tower.

Cy =10, as per clause 8.3, pp 52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

Cz =12m, as per clause 8.3, pp 52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

Lh = 1700, from fig 8, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE

Page 44

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

gfr = 0.85, from fig 8, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

fo = natural frequency = 0.8210858, as per clause 7, pp48, IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

Damping Value () = 0.016, as per table 34, pp52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

Table 6.11: Gust factor results for CT 1

Fo

Cz x h/

Lh

fo x Lh/

Vz

SE/

GF

0.1

1.886

9.2

103.6 9.4

3.24

0.04

0.065

0.71 0.1791

49.84

0.04

29.2

90.4

2.6

8.75

0.041

0.206

0.7

0.1778

42.44

49.2

78.7

0.347

0.7

0.1778

39.39

69.2

69.3

0.8

89.2

63

108.47

134.33

18.6

0.045

0.488

0.68 0.1752

38.08

0.047 0.132

1.88

0.6 23.24

0.03

0.63

0.65 0.1713

36.9

0.048

1.842

61.9

0.766

0.61

0.166

36.03

63.7

0.4 33.42

0.948

0.61

0.166

35.24

0.05

0.03

0.09

0.093 1.817

F(N/mm2)

Degrees

Height (m)

()

9.2

29.2

49.2

69.2

89.2

108.475

134.33

0.000434

0.00023

0.000278

0.000296

0.000773

0.000319

0.000334

15

0.00026

0.000464

30

-0.00035

-0.00084

-0.00097

-0.00104

-0.00062

-0.00111

-0.00117

45

-0.00104

-0.00179

-0.00209

-0.00222

-0.00186

-0.00239

-0.00251

60

-0.00148

-0.00239

-0.00278

-0.00296

-0.00263

-0.00319

-0.00334

75

-0.00182

-0.00287

-0.00334

-0.00356

-0.00325

-0.00382

-0.00401

90

-0.00191

-0.00299

-0.00348

-0.00371

-0.0034

-0.00398

-0.00418

105

-0.00148

-0.00239

-0.00278

-0.00296

-0.00263

-0.00319

-0.00334

Page 45

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

120

-0.00061

-0.0012

-0.00139

-0.00148

-0.00108

-0.00159

-0.00167

135

-0.00087

-0.00155

-0.00181

-0.00193

-0.0015

-0.00207

-0.00217

150

-0.00078

-0.00143

-0.00167

-0.00178

-0.00139

-0.00191

-0.00201

165

-0.00078

-0.00143

-0.00167

-0.00178

-0.00139

-0.00191

-0.00201

180

-0.00078

-0.00143

-0.00167

-0.00178

-0.00139

-0.00191

-0.00201

Cy =10, as per clause 8.3, pp 52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

Cz =12, as per clause 8.3, pp 52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

L h = 1600, from fig 8, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

Gfr = 0.9, from fig 8, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

fo = natural frequency = 0.833182481, as per clause 7, pp48, IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

Damping Value () = 0.016, as per table 34, pp52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.

Fo

Cz x h/

Lh

fo x Lh/

Vz

8.74

104.5

10

3.15

0.045

0.066

0.72 0.1909

48.12

0.04

28.74

82.6

2.4

8.85

0.04

0.216

0.71 0.1896

41.07

48.74

73.7

0.366

0.7

0.1882

38.10

68.74

64.6

0.516

0.69 0.1869

36.79

88.74

59

0.6 23.73

0.03

0.666

0.65 0.1814

35.65

105.55

58.8

0.792

0.62 0.1772

34.87

0.05

0.084 1.874

127.58

60.5

0.957

0.60 0.1743

34.22

0.05

0.10

SE/

GF

0.112 1.958

1.867

Page 46

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Table 6.14: ANSYS input wind pressure results for CT 2

F(N/mm2)

Degrees

Height

()

8.74

0.000451

15

0.00027

30

-0.00108

45

68.74

88.74

105.55

127.585

0.000306

0.000319

0.000328

0.00034

-0.00086

-0.00101

-0.00107

-0.00111

-0.00115

-0.00119

-0.00153

-0.00185

-0.00216

-0.0023

-0.00239

-0.00246

-0.00255

60

-0.00189

-0.00247

-0.00288

-0.00306

-0.00319

-0.00328

-0.0034

75

-0.00198

-0.00296

-0.00345

-0.00368

-0.00382

-0.00394

-0.00408

90

-0.00153

-0.00308

-0.0036

-0.00383

-0.00398

-0.00411

-0.00425

105

-0.0009

-0.00246

-0.00287

-0.00306

-0.00318

-0.00328

-0.00339

120

-0.00063

-0.00161

-0.00187

-0.00199

-0.00207

-0.00214

-0.00221

135

-0.00081

-0.00123

-0.00144

-0.00153

-0.00159

-0.00164

-0.0017

150

-0.00081

-0.00148

-0.00173

-0.00184

-0.00191

-0.00197

-0.00204

165

-0.00081

-0.00148

-0.00173

-0.00184

-0.00191

-0.00197

-0.00204

180

-0.00081

-0.00148

-0.00173

-0.00184

-0.00191

-0.00197

-0.00204

28.74

48.74

0.000247 0.000288

Page 47

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

3. CT 3: Increase the dimensions & decrease the thickness of cooling tower.

Cy =10, as per table 34, pp52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987

Cz =12, as per clause 7, pp48, IS 875 (part 3)-1987

L h = 1750, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987

Gfr = 0.82, from fig 8, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987

fo = natural frequency = 0.7925409, as per clause 8.3, pp 52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987

Damping Value () = 0.016, as per clause 8.3, pp 52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987

Table 6.15: Gust factor results for CT 3

H

9.66

29.66

49.66

69.66

89.66

109.6

121.9

141.1

b

108.

9

95.6

83.9

74.1

67.2

64.2

64.9

66.9

Fo

Cz x h/

Lh

fo x Lh/

Vz

SE/

GF

9.4

2.7

1.4

0.9

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

3.3

8.7

13.4

18.3

22.8

27.2

24.8

34.1

0.049

0.04

0.045

0.039

0.035

0.03

0.032

0.25

0.06

0.2

0.34

0.47

0.61

0.75

0.69

0.96

0.71

0.69

0.69

0.68

0.65

0.62

0.62

0.61

0.1727

0.1703

0.1703

0.169

0.1653

0.1614

0.1614

0.1601

50.07

42.54

39.49

38.23

37.05

36.16

35.8

35.2

0.039

0.041

0.045

0.046

0.047

0.047

0.049

0.049

0.11

0.1

0.12

0.11

0.1

0.08

0.09

0.76

1.858

1.839

1.849

1.837

1.814

1.788

1.793

2.033

F(N/mm2)

Degrees

()

Height (M)

9.66

29.66

49.66

69.66

89.66

109.66

121.39

141.1

0.00029

0.00030

0.000316

0.00032

0.00037

15

0.000257

30

-0.00034

-0.00082

-0.00096

-0.00107

-0.0010

-0.0011

-0.0011

-0.0013

45

-0.00103

-0.00176

-0.00205

-0.00218

-0.0022

-0.00237

-0.00242

-0.0028

60

-0.00145

-0.00235

-0.00274

-0.0029

-0.0030

-0.00316

-0.00323

-0.0379

Page 48

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

75

-0.0018

-0.00282

-0.00328

-0.00348

-0.0036

-0.00379

-0.00387

-0.0045

90

-0.00188

-0.00293

-0.00342

-0.00363

-0.0038

-0.00395

-0.00404

-0.0047

105

-0.00145

-0.00234

-0.00273

-0.00290

-0.0030

-0.00315

-0.00322

-0.0037

120

-0.00086

-0.00152

-0.00178

-0.00189

-0.0019

-0.00205

-0.0021

-0.0024

135

-0.0006

-0.00117

-0.00137

-0.00145

-0.0015

-0.00158

-0.00161

-0.0018

150

-0.00077

-0.00141

-0.00164

-0.00174

-0.0018

-0.00189

-0.00194

-0.0022

165

-0.00077

-0.00141

-0.00164

-0.00174

-0.0018

-0.00189

-0.00194

-0.0022

180

-0.00077

-0.00141

-0.00164

-0.00174

-0.0018

-0.00189

-0.00194

-0.0022

MODELLING:

6.4.1 PREPROCESSING: DEFINING THE PROBLEM

1. Give example a Title

Utility Menu > File > Change Title ...

/title, CT

Preprocessor > Modeling > Create > Key points > In Active CS

3. Define Lines

Preprocessor > Modeling > Create > Lines > Lines > splines Line

4. Symmetrical model

Preprocessor> Modeling>Operate>Extrude>line>About Axis

5. Define Element Types

For modeling we have used 8 noded shell93.

Page 49

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Preprocessor > Real Constants... > Add...

Preprocessor > Material Props > Material Models > Structural >

Linear > Elastic > Isotropic

In the window that appears, enter the following geometric properties

Young's modulus EX:

Poisson's Ratio PRXY:

Density:

6.4.4 MESH

1. Define Mesh Size

Preprocessor > Meshing > Manual Size > Size Controls > Lines > picked Lines...

2. Mesh the frame

Preprocessor > Meshing > Mesh > Area > click 'Pick All'.

1. Define Analysis Type

For Static analysis:

Solution > New Analysis > Static

For Modal analysis:

Solution > New Analysis > modal

For Spectrum analysis:

Solution > New Analysis > spectrum

Page 50

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

2. Apply Constraints

Solution > Define Loads > Apply > Structural > Displacement > On Nodes

3. Apply Loads

Solution > Define Loads > Apply > Structural > Force/Moment > Inertia

force> Gravity> Global

4. Apply Pressure

Solution > Define Loads > Apply > Structural > Pressure > Elements

5. Solve the System

Solution > Solve > Current LS

1. To view the element in 3D rather than a line:

Utility Menu > Plot Ctrls > Style > Size and Shape

2. View the deflection contour plot.

3. View the stress and strain in contour plot

Page 51

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

CHAPTER-7

1. CT 1: Reference cooling tower.

2. CT 2: Decrease the Dimensions of cooling tower & Increase the thickness.

3. CT 3: Increase the Dimension of cooling tower & Decrease the thickness.

Creating geometric model:

Page 52

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Static analysis:

First we create the geometry of the model in ANSYS by using key points & we have to input

material models, shell element & make mesh to model in Preprocessor. By assigning the

loads to the model and selecting Static analysis and solve the problem in solution & read the

results in General post processor.

Page 53

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Page 54

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Series

Max

Deflection

(mm)

Max Principal

Stress

Strain

(mpa)

Stress

Strain

(mpa)

CT 1

6.828

0.049038

0.162 x10-4

2.716

0.859 x10-4

CT 2

6.079

0.05455

0.146 x10-4

2.521

0.796 x10-4

CT 3

7.032

0.063227

0.157 x10-4

2.651

0.838 x10-4

7.2 MODAL ANALYSIS: First we create the geometry of the model in ANSYS by

using key points & we have to input material models, shell element & make mesh to model

in Preprocessor. By assigning the loads to the model and selecting Modal analysis, giving

number of modes to extract as 50 frequencies and solve the problem in solution & read the

results in General post processor.

Page 55

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

@ freq. 1.022 for CT 1

@ freq. 1.022 for CT 1

@ freq. 1.022 for CT 1

@ freq. 1.022 for CT 1

Page 56

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Table 7.2: Modal analysis results

Series

Mode

Freq

Max

(HZ)

Deflection

Stress

(mm)

(mpa)

Max Principal

Strain

Stress

Strain

(mpa)

1.022

0.02515

0.002972

0.941 x10-7

0.00298

0.943 x10-7

1.137

0.026128

0.001849

0.582 x10-7

0.001824

0.577 x10-7

0.8076

0.026254

0.00146

0.446 x10-7

0.001394

0.441 x10-7

CT1

CT2

CT3

First we create the geometry of the model in ANSYS by using key points & we have to input

material models, shell element & make mesh to model in Pre processor. By assigning the

loads to the model and before doing Spectrum analysis first we to do Modal analysis, after

we have to select the spectrum analysis & apply all input datas such as frequencies, seismic

co-efficient, SRSS method and solve the problem in solution & read the results in General

post processor.

Page 57

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Page 58

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Series

Max

Max Principal

Deflection

(mm)

Stress

Strain

Stress

(mpa)

Strain

(mpa)

CT 1

6.523

0.613682

0.195x10-4

0.609945

0.193 x10-14

CT 2

5.902

0.578328

0.183x10-4

0.589108

0.186 x10-14

CT 3

0.119x10-8

0.231 x10-9

0.705x10-14

0.220 x10-9

0.695 10-14

Page 59

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Page 60

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Table 7.4: Response spectrum analysis results for 0.6g

Series

Max

Max Principal

Deflection

(mm)

Stress

Strain

Stress

(mpa)

Strain

(mpa)

-4

0.773432

0.245 x10-4

CT 1

8.547

0.756417

0.224x10

CT 2

7.083

0.693995

0.220x10-4

0.706931

0.224 x10-4

CT 3

0.143x10-8

0.277x10-9

0.845x10-14

0.254x10-9

0.834 10-14

Page 61

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Page 62

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Series

Max

Max Principal

Deflection

(mm)

Stress

Strain

(mpa)

Stress

Strain

(mpa)

CT 1

9.971

0.882172

0.284x10-4

0.902337

0.285 x10-4

CT 2

8.263

0.809658

0.256x10-4

0.824752

0.261 x10-4

CT 3

0.143x10-8

0.323x10-9

0.986x10-14

0.307x10-9

0.973 x10-14

7.4 WIND ANALYSIS: First we create the geometry of the model in ANSYS by using

key points & we have to input material models, shell element & make mesh to model in Pre

processor. By assigning the loads and input the Pressures, alongside to the model and solve

the problem in solution & read the results in General post processor.

Page 63

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Page 64

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

Series

Max

Deflection

(mm)

Max Principal

Stress

Strain

Stress

(mpa)

Strain

(mpa)

CT 1

32.715

2.015

0.640 x10

5.186

0.164 x10-3

CT 2

23.922

1.925

0.421x10-4

4.521

0.146 x10-3

CT 3

57.295

2.59

0.804x10-4

5.32

0.157 x10-3

-4

Page 65

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

CHAPTER-8

The main aim of analysis works on CT as follows. In the present study FEA of 3CT viz CT1,

CT2, CT3 has been carried out to evaluate deflection, Principle stress & strain, Von mises

stress & strain.

1) If dimension is less, deflection is also less and if dimension is more, deflection also

more.

2) The deflection in static analysis is least for CT2 comparssion to CT1 and CT3.

3) The principal stresses in static analysis i.e. (self weight) are observed to be less for

CT1 then CT2 & CT 3.

4) In the free vibration analysis it has been observed the deflection is least for CT1

compare to CT2 and CT3 & principal stress will be least for CT3 compare to CT 1 &

CT2.

5) It is evident from the seismic analysis. The principal stress observed to be least for

CT2 & CT3 comparssion to reference tower CT1.

6) It is evident from the seismic analysis that the deflection is the least in CT2 & CT3

compare to reference tower CT1.

7) It is evident from the wind load analysis that the deflection is the least in CT2

compare to CT1 & CT3.

8) It is evident from the wind load analysis the principal stress is least in CT2 compare

to the CT1 & CT3

9) It is evident from CT2 is subjected to lesser principal stress and deflection in wind

load analysis.

10) It is evident from CT3 is subjected to lesser principal stress and deflection in seismic

analysis.

Page 66

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

CHAPTER-9

1) Thermal stress will not been considered for this project, it will be done in future with

the help of mechanical engineers

2) Non linear analysis will also be applied to the above studies.

3) Time history analysis also has to be done for the earthquake analysis for above

cooling tower.

Page 67

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

REFERNCES:

1) G. Murali, C. M. Vivek Vardhan and B. V. Prasanth Kumar ReddyRESPONSE OF

COOLING TOWERS TO WIND LOADS, ARPN Journal of Engineering and

Applied Sciences

2) D. Makovika, Response Analysis of RC cooling tower under seismic and wind storm

effect, Acta Polytechnica Vol. 46 No. 6/2006.

3) A. M. El Ansary, A. A. El Damatty, and A. O. Nassef, Optimum Shape and Design of

Cooling Towers, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 60 2011.

4) R.L. Norton & v.i Weingarten, the effect of asymmetric imperfections on the earth

quake response of hyperbolic cooling towers.

5) Shailesh S. Angalekar, Dr. A. B. Kulkarni, Analysis of natural draught hyperbolic

cooling tower by finite element method using equivalent plate method.

6) Yang T. Y., Shell Elements for Cooling Tower Analysis, Journal of Engineering

Mechanics, Vol. 109/5, Sep., 1983, pp. 1270-1289.

7) Esmaeil Asadzadeh,Finite element analysis for structural Response of cooling tower

shell considering alternative supporting systems,IJCIET, Volume 3, Issue 1, JanuaryJune (2012), pp. 82-98

8) Saeid Sabouri-Ghomi , Numerical study of the Nonlinear Dynamic behavior of RCC

towers under Earthquake Excitation,Received: 8 September 2005; Received revised

form: 17 January 2006; Accepted: 17 January 2006.

9) Prof. Oral Buyukozturk, 1.054/1.541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures.

10) Dynamic of structures by Anil K Chopra.

11) Design of reinforced concrete shells and folded plates by P.C. Varghese.

12) Advance reinforced concrete design by kirshnaraju.

13) IS: 11504:1985., Criteria for structural design of reinforced concrete natural draught

cooling tower, New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian standards.

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE

Page 68

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS

14) IS: 875 (Part3):1987. Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake loads)

for buildings and structures. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.

15) IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 Criteria for earthquake resistant design structure.

16) www.google.com

17) www.ASCE.com

Page 69

ISSN NO.:2249-6149 [impact factor = 4.55{2011}

url : journals.indexcopernicus.com/passport.php?id=6722]

http://www.rspublication.com/ijeted/ijeted_index.htm IJETED is now indexed in: Google

scolar, Nasa(usa), microsoft academic search, science central, cabell directories( usa) ,

EBSCO (USA), Research gate, Academia.edu, SCIRUS, Index Copernicus,

DOAJ, Open J Gate, Electronic Journal Library, New Jour, Science central.com, Ulrichs

Web, Dayang Journal System and many more under process)

Title: TO STUDY THE EFFECT OF SEISMIC LOADS ON

HYPERBOLIC COOLING TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSION AND RCC

SHELL THICKNESS.

Edition :( Issue 3, Vol. 4) 30 July

Dear Author,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript is accepted for

publication in next edition of IJETED. Your paper is peer reviewed by our expert

panel and they found

Review sheet: General judgments

S.N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Judgment criteria

Is the subject of the article within the scope of the journal?

Are the interpretations and conclusions sound and justified by the data?

Is this a new and original contribution?

Does the title of this paper clearly and sufficiently reflect its contents?

Are the presentation, organization and length satisfactory?

Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts?

Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable?

Are the references adequate and accurate, and are they all necessary

Are the keywords and abstracts/summary informative?

Is the quality of the English language satisfactory?

Please assess scientific quality

Code of Ethics: Authors are responsible for their research work carried out, presentation and results expressed.

Editor-in-Chief, Editors and Editorial Board does not claim any responsibility, liability of statements made and

opinion expressed by authors. Editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the matter published

herein. So be careful and aware when you finalize your manuscript

With Regards

Publishing Manager

International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Development

Comment

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Satisfactory

HYPERBOLIC COOLING TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC

SHELL THICKNESS.

Prasahanth N1, Sayeed sulaiman2

1.

2.

Asst Professor, Dept. of Civil Engg., Ghousia College of Engineering, Ramanagaram- 562159

ABSTRACT:

Natural draught cooling towers are very common in modern day thermal and nuclear

power stations. These towers with very small shell thickness are exceptional structures by

their shear size and sensitivity to horizontal loads. This paper deals with study of

hyperbolic cooling tower of varying dimensions and rcc shell thickness, for the purpose of

comparison a existing tower is consider, for other models of cooling tower the dimensions

and thickness of rcc shell is varied with respect to reference cooling tower. The boundary

conditions should be consider as been top end free and bottom end is fixed. The material

properties of the cooling tower have young modulus 31GPa, poission Ratio 0.15 and

density of rcc 25 Kg/m3.These cooling towers have been analyzed for seismic loads &

wind load using Finite Element Analysis. The seismic load will be carried out for 0.5g,

0.6g& 0.7g in accordance with IS: 1893 (part 1)-2002 and by modal analysis and wind

loads on these cooling towers have been calculated in the form of pressures by using the

design wind pressure coefficients as given in IS: 11504-1985 code along with the design

wind pressures at different levels as per IS: 875 (Part 3) - 1987 code. The analysis has

been carried out using 8-noded 93 Shell Element. The outcome of the analysis is max

deflection, max principal stress & strain, max von mises stress & strain.

Keywords: Cooling tower, FEA, Seismic analysis & wind analysis.

1. INTRODUCTION:

The natural draught cooling tower is a very important and essential component in the

thermal and nuclear power stations. These are huge structures and also show thin shell

structures. Cooling towers are subjected to its self-weight and the dynamic load such as

an earthquake motion and a wind effects. In the absence of earthquake loading, wind

constitutes the main loading for the design of natural draught cooling towers. A lot of

research work was reported in the literature on the seismic &wind load on cooling tower [1

to 5].

G. Murali et al., [1] Response of cooling tower to wind load. He studied the two cooling

towers of 122m and 200m high above ground level. They calculated the values like

meridional forces and bending moments. D.Makovika, Acta Polytechnica [2], Studied

Response Analysis of an RC Cooling Tower under Seismic and Windstorm Effects. The

calculated values of the envelopes of the displacements and the internal forces due to

seismic loading states are compared with the envelopes of the loading states due to the

dead, operational and live loads, wind and temperature actions. Finite element model is

established; then mechanical characters of the tower under gravity, temperature load and

wind loads are analyzed. A. M. El Ansary [3], Optimum shape and design of cooling

tower, study is to develop a numerical tool that is capable of achieving an optimum shape

And design of hyperbolic cooling towers based on coupling a non-linear finite element

model developed in-house and a genetic algorithm optimization technique. R.L.Norton

[4], studied the effect of asymmetric imperfection on the earth quake response of

hyperbolic cooling tower. Shailesh S[5], software package utilized towards a practical

application by considering problem of natural draught hyperbolic cooling towers. The

main interest is to demonstrate that the column supports to the tower could be replaced by

equivalent shell elements so that the software developed could easily be utilized.

For the purposes of comparison, an existing tower Bellary thermal power station

(BTPS) is located in Kudatini Village, Bellary Dist, and Karnataka State, India, is

considered in the current study as the reference design tower. The total height of the

tower is 143.5 m. As shown in Fig. 1, the tower has a base, throat and top radii of 55 m,

30.5 m and 31.85 m, respectively, with the throat located 107.75 m above the base.

The geometry of the Hyperboloid revolution:

In which Ro is the horizontal radius at any vertical coordinate, Y with the origin of

coordinates being defined by the center of the tower throat, ao is the radius of the throat,

and b is some characteristic dimension of the hyperboloid.

Rt=31.8

35.75

Rthr=30.

5

143.5

107.75

98.55

9.2

X

Rb=55

SI

no

Description Parameters

Parametric value

CT1

(Reference )

CT2

(Decreased)

CT3

(Increased)

Total height, H

143.5 m

136.2 m

150.67 m

107.75 m

102.36 m

113.13 m

Diameter at top, Dt

63.6 m

60.5 m

66.8 m

Diameter at bottom, Db

110 m

104.5 m

115.5 m

61 m

57.94 m

64 m

200 mm

250 mm

150 mm

Column Height

9.2 m

8.74 m

9.66 m

3.

Earthquake Forces:

The seismic analysis will be carried out in accordance with IS: 1893 by modal analysis of

the hyperbolic cooling towers, the earthquake analysis of the shell will be carried out by

response spectrum method. Earthquake analysis for the fill supporting structures (RCC

frames) will be carried out by response spectrum method. For the Calculation of the

Design Spectrum, the following Factors were considered as per IS 1893 (part I) 2002.

Zone factor: For Zone III = 0.16

Importance factor (I)

= 1.00

Response reduction factor (R) = 3.00

Average response acceleration coefficient Sa/g =Soft soil site condition.

The design horizontal seismic coefficient Ah for 0.5g, 0.6g & 0.7g of a structure shall be

determined by the following expression: Maximum considered Earthquake (MCE)

of 2% probability.

4.

Wind loads:

The wind pressure at a given height [Pz] will be computed as per the stipulations of

IS: 875 (part 3)-1987. For computing the design wind pressure at a given height the

basic wind speed (Vb) will be taken as Vb=39 m/s at 9.2m height above mean ground

level. For computing design wind speed (Vz) at a height z, the risk coefficient

K1=1.06 will be considered. For coefficient K2 terrain category 2 as per table 2 of IS:

875 (part-3)-1987 will be considered. The wind direction for design purpose will be

the one which world induces worst load condition. Coefficient K3 will be 1 for the

tower under consideration. The wind pressure at a given height wills b e computed

theoretically in accordance to the IS codal provision given as under:

Pz = 0.6 Vz2 N/m2

Where Vz =Vb x K1 x K2 x k3

Computation of wind pressure (Pz) along the wind direction by Gust factor method

5. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING:

Due to the complexity of the material properties, the boundary conditions and the tower

structure, finite element analysis is adopted. The finite element analysis of the cooling

towers has been carried out using ANSYS V.10. The analysis has been carried out using

8-noded shell element (SHELL 93). In the present study, only shell portion of the cooling

towers has been modelled and fixity has been assumed at the base.

5.1

ANSYSV.10:

ANSYS is a commercial FEM package having capabilities ranging from a simple,

linear, static analysis to a complex, non linear, transient dynamic analysis. It is

available in modules; each module is applicable to specific problem. Typical

ANSYS program includes 3 stages Pre processor, Solution & General Post

processor.

6. Material Properties for Analysis of CT:

CT 1: BTPS as reference of cooling tower.

CT 2: Decrease the dimensions & Increase the thickness of cooling tower.

CT 3: Increase the dimension & decrease the thickness of cooling tower.

7.1 Static analysis:

CT1

Series Max Deflection

(mm)

Max Principle

Stress

(mpa)

Strain

Stress

(mpa)

Strain

CT 1

6.828

2.716

0.859x10-4

CT 2

6.079

2.521

0.796x10-4

CT 3

7.032

0.063277

0.157x10-4

2.651

0.838 x10-4

1.022

In CT1

in CT1

Fig 16: Von mises Stress

1.022 in CT 1

1st mode @ freq 1.022 in CT 1

1st mode @ freq 1.022 in CT1

Series

Modes

Freq

Max

(HZ)

Deflection

Max Principal

Stress

(mm)

Strain

Stress

(mpa)

(mpa)

Strain

1.022

0.02515

0.002972

0.941 x10-7

0.00298

0.943 x10-7

1.305

0.024832

0.001647

0.521 x10-7

0.001652

0.523 x10-7

10

1.512

0.01977

0.001328

0.415 x10-7

0.001303

0.412 x10-7

1.137

0.026128

0.001849

0.582 x10-7

0.001824

0.577 x10-7

1.49

0.020358

0.001381

0.434 x10-7

0.001355

0.429 x10-7

10

1.67

0.021157

0.002332

0.732 x10-7

0.002277

0.194 x10-8

0.8076

0.026254

0.00146

0.446 x10-7

0.001394

0.441 x10-7

0.9904

0.025641

0.002206

0.665 x10-7

0.002014

0.637 x10-7

10

1.189

0.020245

0.002329

0.705 x10-7

0.00212

0.671 x10-7

CT1

CT2

CT3

Strain

at 0.5g, CT1

at 0.5g, CT1

at 0.5g, CT1

at 0.5g, CT1

Series Max Deflection

(mm)

Max Principle

Stress

(mpa)

Strain

Stress

(mpa)

Strain

CT 1

6.523

0.613682

0.195 x10-4

0.609945

0.193 x10-4

CT 2

5.902

0.578328

0.183 x10-4

0.589108

0.186 x10-4

CT 3

0.119 x10-8

Series Max Deflection

(mm)

Max Principle

Stress

(mpa)

Strain

Stress

(mpa)

Strain

CT 1

8.547

0.756147

0.244 x10-4

0.773432

0.245 x10-4

CT 2

7.083

0.693995

0.220 x10-4

0.706931

0.224 x10-4

CT 3

0.143 x10-8

Series

Max

Deflection

(mm)

Max Principle

Stress

(mpa)

Strain

Stress

(mpa)

Strain

CT 1

9.971

0.882172

0.284 x10-4

0.902337

0.285 x10-4

CT 2

8.263

0.809658

0.256 x10-4

0.824752

0.261 x10-4

CT 3

0.167 x10-8

0.323 x10-9

0986 x10-14

0.307 x10-9

0.973 x10-14

Fig26: Principal Strain for CT1 Fig27: Von mises Stress for CT1 Fig28: Von mises Strain for CT1

Series Max Deflection Max Principle

(mm)

Stress Strain

(mpa)

Stress Strain

(mpa)

CT 1

32.715

2.015

0.640x10-4

5.186

0.164 x10-3

CT 2

23.922

1.295

0.146 x10-3

CT 3

57.295

2.59

0.157 x10-3

8. Conclusions:

The main aim of analysis works on CT as follows. In the present study FEA of 3CT

viz CT1, CT2, CT3 has been carried out to evaluate principle stress and strain, Von

mises stress and strain and deflection.

1) If dimension is less, deflection is also less and if dimension is more, deflection

also more.

2) The deflection in static analysis is least for CT2 comparssion to reference tower

CT1 and CT3.

3) The principal stresses in static analysis i.e. (self weight) are observed to be less for

CT2 then the reference tower CT1.

4) In the free vibration analysis it has been observed that the principal stress for the

1st mode is greater for CT1 than CT2 and CT3.

5) It is evident from the seismic analysis. The principal stress observed to be least

for CT2 & CT3 comparssion to reference tower CT1.

6) It is evident from the seismic analysis that the deflection is the least in CT2 &

CT3 compare to reference tower CT1.

7) It is evident from the wind load analysis that the deflection is the least in CT2.

&principal stress is least in CT2 compare to the reference tower CT1and CT3.

9. Future to scope:

Thermal stress will not been considered for this project, it will be done in

future with the help of mechanical engineers

10. References:

1) G. Murali, C. M. Vivek Vardhan and B. V. Prasanth Kumar ReddyRESPONSE

OF COOLING TOWERS TO WIND LOADS, ARPN Journal of Engineering and

Applied Sciences

2) D. Makovika, Response Analysis of RC cooling tower under seismic and wind

storm effect, Acta Polytechnica Vol. 46 No. 6/2006.

3) A. M. El Ansary, A. A. El Damatty, and A. O. Nassef, Optimum Shape and

Design of Cooling Towers, World Academy of Science, Engineering and

Technology 60 2011.

4) R.L.Norton, & v.i Weingarten, the effect of asymmetric imperfections on the earth

quake response of hyperbolic cooling towers.

5) Shailesh S. Angalekar, Dr. A. B. Kulkarni, Analysis of natural draught hyperbolic

cooling tower by finite element method using equivalent plate method.

6) IS: 11504:1985, Criteria for structural design of reinforced concrete natural

draught cooling tower, New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian standards.

7) IS: 875 (Part3):1987, Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake

loads) for buildings and structures. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.

8) IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 Criteria for earthquake resistant design structure

- Analysis of Jacketed Reinforced Concrete ColumnDiunggah olehcena3135
- My Final year ProjectDiunggah olehramanan6
- Design and Analysis of Shell structuresDiunggah olehShivareddy Kondakindi
- Modelling of concrete using abaqus- nonlinear analysisDiunggah olehPrashanth Shyamala
- Review of Elastic Analysis of Box Girder BridgesDiunggah olehAlan Aguilar Tenorio
- A Finite Element Study of the Multi Layered Structured Dental PostDiunggah olehNoor Hayaty Abu Kasim
- Desiga of Steel StructuresDiunggah olehJyothi Smily
- theory of elasticity Lecture Notes - Dr V S ReddyDiunggah olehvempadareddy
- Anna university Fea question paperDiunggah olehAnand Ras
- Cooling Tower FundamentalsDiunggah olehapi-3751054
- IS 1893 (Part-4) 2015 (1)Diunggah olehjacs127
- Logan5eChapter1Diunggah olehVinay Patil
- Lui, Y - Finite Element Methods Lectures [Uni of Cincinnati]Diunggah olehgorantlalokesh
- Design Optimization of Rigid Metal ContainersDiunggah olehAsim Ali
- coursework.docxDiunggah olehJesús Rodríguez Rodríguez
- On Teaching Finite Element Method in Plasticity With MathematicaDiunggah olehyesullen
- Static and Dynamic Analysis of Hyperbolic Cooling Tower_2014Diunggah olehLandon Mitchell
- What can go wrong with finite element analysisDiunggah olehchennrik
- theory of elasticity notesDiunggah olehdudynayn
- FEA Question bank Mechanical EngineeringDiunggah olehgoldencomet
- INTEGRATED NUMERICAL METHODS FOR OPTIMIZATION OF GEAR TRAINSDiunggah olehJavad Taherpoor
- TESIS BODY.pdfDiunggah olehAngel
- saFEM.pdfDiunggah olehAdrian Isumaki
- Frequency Placement of High Aspect Ratio WingsDiunggah olehodeh
- 08_Energy_06_Minimum_Potential_Energy.pdfDiunggah olehmaddys58
- Recent Advances in FEMDiunggah olehRaj kumar
- Coupled Boundary Element Finite Element AnalysiDiunggah olehSaif Rahman
- ModalAnalysisOfDriveShaftUsingFEA(4 7)839f8a01 05f1 4cb7 9692 54b24438f5c7Diunggah olehlayiro2
- FEM.pdfDiunggah olehAnil Kadbhane
- Intern PptDiunggah olehrakesh

- Analysis and Design of Shear WallsDiunggah olehRkkodi
- Self Compacting Concrete Using Fly Ash and Glass FibreDiunggah olehRkkodi
- Lean Manufacturing MethdologyDiunggah olehRkkodi
- Sugarcane Bagasee Ash as a Cement ReplacementDiunggah olehRkkodi
- Design-rcc Over Head TankDiunggah olehjay_p_shah
- Study of Masonary Infilled RC Frame With Without OpeningDiunggah olehRkkodi
- Double Skinned Steel Tubular (DSST)Diunggah olehRkkodi
- Study of Substitute Frame Method of Analysis for Lateral Loading ConditionsDiunggah olehMohnish Kaushal
- self compacting concrete using flyash and glass fibreDiunggah olehRkkodi
- Seismic Design of RC BuildingsDiunggah olehRkkodi
- 09_Approximate exampleDiunggah olehThon Marvine Dionisio Urbano
- Portal MethodDiunggah olehAditi Bhardwaj
- Buckling Behaviour of Concrete Filled Steel Tube Under FEMDiunggah olehRkkodi
- Double Skinned Steel Tubular ColumnsDiunggah olehRkkodi
- Hollow Circular Steel Tube in filled with epoxy blended concerte.pdfDiunggah olehRkkodi
- incorporation of agrosilica in concerte.pdfDiunggah olehRkkodi

- Turning ForcesDiunggah olehcgozzard
- Dynamics of GyroscopesDiunggah olehLeo Kuts
- Stress Intensity FactorsDiunggah olehajmal
- 169397882-Michigan Tech Team Models Molecular TransistorDiunggah olehDivyesh Dixit
- fl62validDiunggah olehSanjay Gupta
- Rankine Cycle - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaDiunggah olehNandakrishnan S L
- TheoryDiunggah olehVeyolla Jaffrey
- AngleDiunggah olehNguyễnTúSơn
- Block Diagram of Radar and Its Range EquationDiunggah olehjyotigill
- Ch.2 Kinematics worksheetDiunggah olehShahroze Ahmed
- ReviewDiunggah olehTsiNat Natha
- Atkins Physical Chemistry 10th SolutionsDiunggah olehtj
- Heating and Current Capacity of Bare ConductorsDiunggah olehdrboudriau
- LNG Source Term ModelsDiunggah olehMubarik Ali
- Kinema TicsDiunggah olehsheden0320
- Nuclearengineering ASUDiunggah olehbookslover1
- Quake QuestDiunggah olehRahman Atthariq
- Harmonic Oscillator ProjectDiunggah olehsvhanu4010
- Physics - Final Lab (Optics)Diunggah olehscoop712
- I01 ForcesNcomponentsDiunggah olehSeverina Mallari
- The Forces that contribute to Protein FoldingDiunggah oleheiraaraa
- Weighing PrinciplesDiunggah olehir-ones
- VISCOSITY.pptDiunggah olehkumar
- Dynamic Detection of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Damage by Finite Element Model UpdatingDiunggah olehMohammed Lamine MOUSSAOUI
- (8) LoadingDiunggah olehDan Gray
- Conduction Cooling for Chassis and Circuit BoardsDiunggah olehKadir Bozdemir
- Eng-Mektan-I-1 Aliran air tanah.pdfDiunggah olehnaswahm
- Design for Torsion (Part I)Diunggah olehbemd_ali6990
- Radiation RadioactivityDiunggah olehahkiaenaaaa
- A Brief History of PhysicsDiunggah olehAl-Tifani Rizky Hayyu

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.