Anda di halaman 1dari 14

ACI 307R-98

Commentary on Design and Construction of

Reinforced Concrete Chimneys (ACI 307-98)
Reported by ACI Committee 307
David J. Bird

Victor A. Bochicchio Jagadish R. Joshi Randolph W. Snook

John J. Carty Robert A. Porthouse John C. Sowizal
Shu-Jin Fang Ronald E. Purkey Barry J. Vickery
Milton Hartstein Scott D. Richart Edward L. Yordy
Thomas Joseph Wadi S. Rumman

This commentary discusses some of the background and consideration of Chapter 3Construction requirements, p. 307R-3
Committee 307 in developing the provisions contained in Design and 3.3Strength tests
Construction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys (ACI 307-98). The
changes from the previous edition are noted. Two appendices provide the
derivation of the equations for nominal strength and temperature stresses. 3.5Reinforcing placement

Keywords: chimneys; compressive strength; concrete construction; earth- Chapter 4Service loads and general design
quake-resistant structures; formwork (construction); foundations; high criteria, p. 307R-3
temperature; linings; loads (forces); moments; openings; precast concrete; 4.1General
quality control; reinforced concrete; reinforcing steels; specifications; 4.2Wind loads
static loads; strength; structural analysis; structural design; temperature; 4.3Earthquake loads
thermal gradient; wind pressure.
4.5Deflection criteria
Introduction, p. 307R-2 Chapter 5Design of chimney shell: Strength
method, p. 307R-7
Chapter 1General, p. 307R-3 5.3Required strength
5.4Design strength
1.4Reference standards
5.5Nominal moment strength
5.6Design for circumferential bending
Chapter 2Materials, p. 307R-3
Chapter 6Thermal stresses, p. 307R-9
ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and 6.2Vertical temperature stresses
Commentaries are intended for guidance in planning, de-
signing, executing, and inspecting construction. This doc- Appendix ADerivation of equations for nominal
ument is intended for the use of individuals who are strength, p. 307R-9
competent to evaluate the significance and limitations
of its content and recommendations and who will accept Appendix BDerivation of equations for
temperature stresses, p. 307R-13
responsibility for the application of the material it con-
tains. The American Concrete Institute disclaims any and Appendix CReferences, p. 307R-14
all responsibility for the stated principles. The Institute shall
not be liable for any loss or damage arising therefrom.
Reference to this document shall not be made in contract
ACI 307R-98 supercedes ACI 307R-95 and became effective November 1, 1998.
documents. If items found in this document are desired Copyright 1998, American Concrete Institute.
All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any
by the Architect/Engineer to be a part of the contract doc- means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by electronic or
uments, they shall be restated in mandatory language for mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduc-
tion or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in
incorporation by the Architect/Engineer. writing is obtained from the copyright proprietors.


INTRODUCTION levels that might be desirable for various classes of construc-

As industry expanded in the years immediately following tion. Committee investigations revealed that with some of
World War I and as a result of the development of large pul- the modifications (such as the K factor), the base shear equa-
verized coal-fired boilers for the electric power generating tions developed by the Seismology Committee of the Struc-
utilities in the 1920s, a number of rather large reinforced tural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) could
concrete chimneys were constructed to accommodate these be applied to chimneys. Similarly, the shape of the force,
new facilities. A group of interested engineers who foresaw shear, and moment distributions, as revised in their 1967 re-
the potential need for many more such chimneys and who port, were also suitable for chimneys. A use factor (U factor)
were members of the American Concrete Institute decided to ranging from 1.3 to 2.0 was introduced in the specification
embark upon an effort to develop a rational design criteria and it was emphasized that the requirements of Section 4.5
for these structures. The group was organized into ACI Com- of ACI 307-69 relating to seismic design could be supersed-
mittee 505 (this committee was the predecessor of the ed by a rational analysis based on evaluation of the seismic-
present Committee 307) to develop such criteria in the early ity of the site and modal response calculations. The
1930s. modifications were approved in 1969 and the specification
Committee 505 submitted to the Institute a Proposed was designated ACI 307-69. In that specification, the com-
Standard Specification for the Design and Construction of mentary and derivation of equations were published sepa-
Reinforced Concrete Chimneys, an outline of which was rately as a supplement to ACI 307-69.
published in the ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 30, Mar.- In 1970, the specification was reissued with corrections of
Apr. 1934. This specification was adopted as a tentative
typographical errors. This issue of ACI 307-69 was also des-
standard in February 1936. Although this tentative standard
ignated ANSI A158.1-1970. At the time, as a result of nu-
was never accepted by ACI as a regular standard, it was used
merous requests, the commentary and derivation of
as the basis for the design of many chimneys. As these chim-
equations were bound together with the specification.
neys aged, inspections revealed considerable cracking.
When the industrial expansion began following World War The 1979, revision of the specification updated its require-
II, other engineers recognized the need for developing an im- ments to agree with the then-accepted standard practice in
proved design specification for reinforced chimneys. the design and construction of reinforced concrete chimneys.
In May 1949, Committee 505 was reactivated to revise the The major changes included the requirement that two layers
tentative standard specification, embodying modifications of reinforcing steel be used in the walls of all chimneys
that were found desirable during the years it had been in use. (previously this only applied to chimney walls thicker than
The section dealing with the temperature gradient through 18 in. [4600 mm]) and the requirement that horizontal sec-
the chimney lining and the chimney shell was completely re- tions through the chimney wall be designed for the radial
vised and extended to cover different types and thicknesses wind pressure distribution around the chimney. Formulas
of linings and both unventilated and ventilated air spaces be- were included to compute the stresses under these condi-
tween the lining and the concrete shell. In 1954, this specifi- tions. Many revisions of a less important nature were includ-
cation was approved as ACI 505-54. ed to bring the specification up to date.
The rapid increase in the size and height of concrete chim- The editions of the specifications prior to 1979 included
neys being built in the mid-1950s raised further questions appendices on the subjects of chimney linings and accesso-
about the adequacy of the 1954 version of the specification, ries. In 1971, Committee 307 learned of buckling problems
especially as related to earthquake forces and the effects of in steel chimney liners. The Committee also noted that in
wind. modern power plant and process chimneys, environmental
In May 1959, the ACI Board of Direction again reactivat- regulations required treatment of the effluent gases that
ed Committee 505 (Committee 307) to review the standard could result in extremely variable and aggressively corrosive
and to update portions of the specification in line with the lat- conditions in the chimneys. In view of these facts, the Com-
est design techniques and the then-current knowledge of the mittee agreed that the task of keeping the chimney liner rec-
severity of the operating conditions that prevailed in large ommendations current was not a responsibility of an ACI
steam plants. The material in the standard was reorganized, committee and could be misleading to designers using the
charts were added, and the methods for determining loads chimney specification. It was the consensus of the Commit-
due to wind and earthquakes were revised. The information tee that the reference to chimney liner construction be
on design and construction of various types of linings was dropped from future editions of the specification. Recogniz-
amplified and incorporated in an appendix. That specifica- ing this, Committee 307 made a recommendation to the
tion included criteria for working stress design. It was Brick Manufacturers Association and the American Society
planned to add ultimate strength criteria in a future revision of Civil Engineers that each appoint a task force or a com-
of this standard. mittee for the development of design criteria for brick and
In preparing the earthquake design recommendations, the steel liners, respectively. The Power Division of ASCE took
Committee incorporated the results of theoretical studies by up the recommendation and appointed a task committee that
adapting them to existing United States codes. The primary developed and published in 1975 a design guide entitled,
problems in this endeavor stemmed from the uncertainties Design and Construction of Steel Chimney Liners. ASTM
still inherent in the definition of earthquake forces and from established two task forces for chimney liners, one for brick
the difficulty of selecting the proper safety and serviceability and the other for fiberglass reinforced plastic.

The Committee had extensive discussion on the question The load factor for across-wind forces has been re-
of including strength design in the 1979 specification. The duced from 1.40 to 1.20.
decision to exclude it was based on the lack of experimental The vertical strength reduction factor has been re-
data on hollow concrete cylinders to substantiate this form of duced from 0.80 to 0.70.
analysis for concrete chimneys. However, the Committee It should be noted that the reduced load factors must be
continued to consider strength design and encouraged used in concert with the revised strength reduction factor and
experiments in this area. the wind and seismic loads specified in ASCE 7-95.
Shortly after the 1979 edition was issued, the Committee The foregoing revisions are discussed in more detail in the
decided to incorporate strength design provisions and update following commentary.
the wind and earthquake design requirements. Finally, the Committee believes that the ACI 307 standard is
The 1988 edition of ACI 307 incorporated significant particularly unique in its inclusion of specific procedures to
changes in the procedures for calculating wind forces as well calculate wind and seismic forces on chimneys. Consequently,
as requiring strength design rather than working stress. The the Committee feels that the previous Commentary regarding
effects of these and other revisions resulted in designs with these subjects should be retained wherever possible.
relatively thin walls governed mainly by steel area and, in Similarly, the Committee believes that the Commentary
many instances, across-wind forces. regarding the assumptions and procedures for strength de-
The subject of across-wind loads dominated the attention sign and other recent revisions should also be retained for
of the Committee between 1988 and 1995 and the 1995 stan- reference.
dard introduced modified procedures to reflect more recent
A chapter-by-chapter commentary follows.
information and thinking.
Precast chimney design and construction techniques were
introduced as this type of design became more prevalent for 1.1Scope
chimneys as tall as 300 ft (91.4 m). The scope of the 1995 standard was expanded to include
The subject of noncircular shapes was also introduced in 1995. precast chimney shells. Additional information may be
However, due to the virtually infinite array of possible configu- found in PCI manuals.1,2 Warnes3 provides further guide-
rations, only broadly defined procedures were presented. lines on connection details for precast structures. Additional
Because of dissimilarities between the load factors re- information is given in ACI 550R, Design Recommenda-
quired by the ACI 307 standard and ACI 318, the Committee tions for Precast Concrete Structures.
added guidelines for determining bearing pressures and
loads to size and design chimney foundations. 1.4Reference standards
In summary, the following highlights the major changes The year of adoption or revision for the referenced stan-
that were incorporated into the 1995 standard: dards has been updated.
Modified procedures for calculating across-wind loads;
Added requirements for precast concrete chimney col- CHAPTER 2MATERIALS
umns; No changes of note have been made in this section.
Added procedures for calculating loads and for design-
ing noncircular chimney columns; CHAPTER 3CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Deleted exemptions previously granted to smaller chim- 3.3Strength tests
neys regarding reinforcement and wall thickness; and Requirements for testing precast concrete units were add-
Deleted static equivalent procedures for calculating ed in the 1995 standard.
earthquake forces.
Shear transfer within precast concrete shells must be con-
Synopsis of current revisions
Revisions to the ASCE 7-95 standard relating to wind and sidered in design especially if the structure has vertical as
seismic forces required that several changes be made to the well as horizontal construction joints.
1995 edition of ACI 307. The following highlights the
changes incorporated into the current standard: 3.5Reinforcing placement
The size, spacing, and location of vertical cores within pre-
Site-specific wind loads are calculated using a 3-sec
cast concrete chimney shells will be determined by geometry
gust speed determined from Fig. 6-1 in ASCE 7-95 in-
and steel area requirements. It is important that the design of
stead of the previously used fastest-mile speed.
precast chimneys comply with the minimum spacing require-
Site-specific earthquake forces are calculated using the
ments of ACI 318 when arranging reinforcement within the
effective peak velocity-related acceleration contours
cores to permit proper bar splicing and concrete placement.
determined from Contour Map 9-2 in ASCE 7-95 in-
stead of previously designated zonal intensity.
The vertical load factor for along-wind forces has been AND GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA
reduced from 1.7 to 1.3. 4.1General
The vertical load factor for seismic forces has been re- The 1995 Committee re-evaluated the previous exemp-
duced from 1.87 to 1.43. tions regarding two-face reinforcement and minimum wall

thickness for chimneys 300 ft (91.4 m) or less in height and Eq. (4-1) permits the mean hourly speed at height z to be
less than 20 ft (6.1 m) in diameter. Recent information has determined from the basic design speed that is the 3-sec
indicated that two-face circumferential reinforcement is nec- gust speed at 33 ft (10 m) over open country. The conver-
essary to minimize vertical cracking due to radial wind pres- sion is based on the relationship recommended by Hollister.5
sures and reverse thermal gradients due to the effects of solar The specified wind loads presume that the chimney is located
heating. Reverse thermal gradients due to solar heating may in open country. In rougher terrains the overall loads will
be more pronounced when the air space between the column be reduced, but for a tall chimney (height on the order of
and lining is purged by pressurization fans and gas tempera- 650 ft [198 m]) the reduction is not likely to exceed 20
tures are low. Further, the 1995 Committee believed that percent.
two-face reinforcement should be required in all chimney VR in Eq. (4-1) is the product of the square root of the im-
columns, regardless of size, considering the aggressive envi- portance factor I and V, the basic wind speed as charted and
ronment surrounding chimneys. defined in ASCE 7-95. It should be noted that I can be used minimum wall thickness of 8 in. (200 mm) to vary probability, as well as to classify the importance of
(7 in. [180 mm] if precast) is required to provide for proper the structure. The Committee believes that all chimneys
concrete placement within and around two curtains of rein- should be designed to be part of an essential facility classi-
forcement. fied as a Category IV structure. The importance factor of 1995 Committee expressed concern re- 1.15 for Category IV buildings and structures corresponds to
garding edge buckling of relatively thin walls through re- a mean recurrence interval of 100 years. Additional informa-
gions where tall openings are present. The simplified tion can be found in ASCE 7-95.
procedure given in this section will give approximately the The simplified provisions of this standard do not preclude
same results as the procedures of Chapter 10.10 of ACI 318. the use of more detailed methods, and the results of a full dy-
If jamb buttresses are used, it is recommended that they be namic analysis employing accepted approaches and recog-
poured homogeneously with the section or adequately tied to nizing the flow profile and turbulence levels at a specific site
ensure composite action. may be used in place of the standard provisions. The approx- design: The loading combinations imate methods have, however, been tested against more de-
in the 1995 version of this article have been deleted. The tailed analyses, using probablistic6,7 and deterministic8
psuedo-bearing pressure/pile loads shall be computed by approaches. These methods yielded acceptable results.
multiplying the unfactored dead and axial bending loads by 4.2.2 Along-wind loadsThe recommended drag coeffi-
their appropriate load factor from Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. cients are consistent with slender chimneys [h/d(h) > 20]
with a relative surface roughness on the order of 10-4 to 10-5.
4.2Wind loads Some reduction in the drag coefficient Cdr with decreasing h/
4.2.1 GeneralThe basic wind speed V in the current d(h) can be expected but unusually rough (e.g., ribbed) chim-
standard has been revised from fastest-mile to a 3-sec neys would have higher values of Cdr. The variations of Cdr
gust speed to reflect the changes published in ASCE 7-95. with roughness and aspect ratio are discussed by Basu9 and
Eq. (4-1) has been modified accordingly. In Eq. (4-1), 1.47 Vickery and Basu.10
converts wind speed from mph to ft/sec and 0.65 converts 3- The total load per unit length is computed as the sum of
sec gust speed to a mean hourly speed. The revised power the mean component w(z) and the fluctuating component
law coefficient 0.154 (as an approximation of 1/6.5) comes w(z). The dynamic component was evaluated using a
from Table C6-6 in the Commentary to ASCE 7-95, for Ex- slightly modified form of the gust factor approaches de-
posure C and for flexible or dynamically sensitive structures; scribed by Davenport,11 Vickery,6 and Simiu.12 The base
the increase in the exponent increases the calculated pres- moment is evaluated using the gust factor approach but the
sures over the chimney height for the same speed. loads producing this moment are approximated by a trian-
The 3-sec gust speed is always higher than the previous- gular distribution rather than a distribution matching the
ly specified fastest-mile speed. A fastest-mile wind mean. Eq. (4-6) is a simple empirical fit to values of Gw
speed may be converted to a 3-sec gust speed for normal computed as before for a structural damping of 1.5 percent
speeds of interest in chimney design using the following of critical. Except for referencing V as the 3-sec gust speed,
equation no revisions have been made to the procedures for calculat-
ing along-wind loads.
3-sec gust V = 1.0546 (fastest mile V + 11.94) The natural period of the chimney may include the effect
of foundation springs.
The relationship between 3-sec gust speed and any other 4.2.3 Across-wind loadsNo revisions have been made to
averaging time can be found in texts such as Wind Effects on the procedures for calculating across-wind forces. However,
Structures4 by Simiu and Scanlon. Eq. (4-8a) has been rewritten for simplification and several
The procedure was determined from simplified dynamic typographical errors were corrected.
analyses that yield equivalent static load distributions. This The 1995 Committee had numerous user comments and
approach requires that a wind speed averaged over a period discussions regarding the procedures included in the 1988
on the order of 20 min to 1 hr be used as a basis for design. standard for across-wind forces. Virtually all of the com-

Table 4.2.3Comparison of results: along- plus across-wind moments, 1988 versus

1995 procedures
Description of chimneys
Chimney Height, ft TOD, ft BOD, ft Tapers VI, mph h/d at 5/6h hz
6 485 47.67 53.50 3 85.0 10.17 0.485
13 500 52.17 52.17 1 76.8 09.58 0.428
7 534 51.09 61.55 1 74.9 10.11 0.591
8 545 33.00 55.00 1 85.6 14.86 0.432
9 613 73.00 73.00 1 74.9 08.40 0.406
12 978 71.50 114.58 3 74.9 13.68 0.295
2 275 28.00 28.00 1 85.6 09.82 0.752
4 375 20.00 32.00 1 85.6 17.05 0.529
Calculated wind speeds
Per ACI 307-88 Per ACI 307-95
Chimney Vcr, mph V(zcr), mph V(zcr), mph V, mph Vcr, mph k
6 78.9 93.9 93.3 88.3 77.8 1.135
13 76.2 84.0 83.5 83.5 76.3 1.094
7 106.4 84.8 84.3 84.3 105.2 0.802
8 54.0 96.0 95.5 55.2 48.6 1.135
9 101.1 86.4 85.9 85.9 104.9 0.820
12 72.0 92.3 91.7 66.0 66.0 1.000
2 71.8 87.2 86.7 86.7 71.5 1.214
4 39.7 91.1 90.6 45.3 34.6 1.310
Factored base wind moments in ft-tons
Per ACI 307-88, RMS com- Per ACI 307-95, RMS
bined along- and across- combined along- and Per ACI 307-88 and ACI
wind: Bs = 0.015; across-wind: Bs = 0.010; 307-95 along-wind only:
Chimney LF = 1.40 LF = 1.40 LF = 1.70
6 270,600 209,200 160.900
13 283,500 224,100 148,000
7 447,800 238,100 165,100
8 117,500 79,400 161,200
9 971,700 459,100 320,700
12 1,475,800 977,400 865,300
2 39,800 34,100 28,600
4 16,500 11,600 43,800

mentators felt that the 1988 procedures were unduly conser- using the procedures of Section of ACI 307-88 or by
vative, especially in the absence of any record of structural the general approach put forth by Vickery.13
failure. As a result of these discussions, and with the avail- It should be noted, however, that the procedures for deter-
ability of new data and full-scale observations, the proce- mining shedding forces are not materially affected by the
dures for calculating across-wind loads were extensively configuration of the lower third of the shell, which may
revised. range from plumb to any degree of taper.
A general solution for the across-wind response of circular However, it should also be noted that noncircular shapes
chimneys with any geometry was developed by Vickery.13 may be more sensitive to across-wind forces and may require
These procedures, based on Vickerys general solution, were analyses beyond the scope of this standard.
simplified to some extent, which requires that their applica- Eq. (4-16) establishes a basis for increasing structural
tion be restricted to certain geometries. Similar models have damping from a minimum of 1.0 percent to a maximum of
provided the basis for vortex-induced forces incorporated by 4.0 percent when the wind speed V exceeds V(zcr). Structural
the National Building Code of Canada, and the ASME/ANSI damping of 1 percent of critical is consistent with measured
STS-1-1992 Steel Stack Standard. values and moderate stress levels with little cracking. Damp-
Circular chimneys outside the bounds of these procedures, ing of 4.0 percent, which would be permitted when V = 1.30
or where a flare or strong taper (nozzle) exists for more than V(zcr), is more consistent with damping values permitted in
one diameter near the top, may be conservatively analyzed seismic design.

Eight sample chimneys were studied using the 1988 pro- ty will now be established using the effective peak velocity-
cedures and the 1995 procedures. Fatigue damage was also related (EPV) acceleration contours Av, as shown on Contour
considered using the procedures put forth by Vickery.13 It Map 9-2 in ASCE 7-95.
was concluded that a case-by-case analysis of fatigue in cir- EPV-related acceleration is used because frequencies of
cular chimneys that would require a supplemental working concrete chimney shells are generally lower than about 3 Hz,
stress analysis was not necessary, as fatigue stresses in the and velocity-related acceleration controls the response.
sample chimneys were within acceptable limits. Table 4.3.2(b) has been revised to reflect the changes nec-
Results using the 1988 and the 1995 procedures are compared essary to relate scaling ratios to acceleration contours. Al-
in Table 4.2.3. These chimneys were selected from a group of though the probability of seismic acceleration not being
projects where the aspect ratio h/d is at or near 10, where peak exceeded has been revised from 80 to 90 percent, the re-
excitation is normally found. Note that for Chimneys 7 and 9 the sponse spectrum shown in Fig. 4.3.2 has not been changed,
critical wind speed exceeds the design wind speed, permitting
since it is comparable to that given in the 1994 UBC for rock
modification of both damping [Eq. (4-16)] and Ma [Eq. (4-8a)],
and stiff (firm) soils.
which significantly reduces the base moments.
The design response spectrum provided in the standard is Grouped chimneysInteractions between closely
spaced cylindrical objects have been studied in considerable an average elastic response spectrum, normalized for a peak
detail but virtually all the test results are for subcritical val- horizontal ground acceleration of 1.00 with 5 percent of crit-
ues of Reynolds Numbers and their applicability to chimneys ical damping. It represents a spectrum of 50 percent shape-
is highly questionable. However, even with the scale effects bound probability level that the response of the structure dur-
introduced by the inequality of the Reynolds Number, the ing an earthquake would not exceed. It is the same spectrum
wind tunnel is presently the only tool that will provide guid- that has been adopted for use in the design of steel chimney
ance as to the likely magnitude of interference effects. A re- liners for earthquakes by the Task Committee of the American
view of interference effects is given by Zdravkokvich.14 Society of Civil Engineers.20 To obtain the design response
Vickery13 attributes the amplification of shedding forces to spectrum, the normalized spectrum must be scaled down to
increased turbulence and additional buffeting effects, which the effective peak velocity EPV related ground acceleration.
formed the basis for revisions made to this section. The ASCE 7-95 map for the EPV-related acceleration co-
At center-to-center spacings s, in excess of 2 to 3 diame- efficient is used in this standard. This map differs from those
ters, the prime interference effect is related to across-wind used in the Uniform Building Code, which was based on the
excitation due to shedding. The recommendations in Section
maximum recorded intensity of shaking without regard to are based on the results of Vickery and Daly15 and
the frequency with which earthquake shaking might occur.
were obtained at subcritical values of the Reynolds Number.
The first term in modifier (c) is an enhancement factor to ac- The ASCE 7-95 map, on the other hand, has a more uniform
count for buffeting due to vortices shed by the upstream probability of earthquake occurrence, and is based on those
structure; the second term accounts for small-scale turbu- given by the NEHRP (see Reference 21). For example, in
lence. The same reference also contains results for two cyl- Zone 4 seismic area, the EPV-related acceleration is 0.4g and
inders of different size with the upstream structure having a the probability of not exceeding this peak EPV ground accel-
diameter 25 percent greater than the diameter d of the other. eration within 50 years is estimated to be 90 percent. This is
In this case the amplification of the response of the down- equivalent to a mean recurrence interval of 475 years, or an
wind chimney is roughly 3.4 - 0.2 s/d for 4 < s/d < 12. The average annual risk of 0.002 events per year. The peak EPV-
amplification of shedding for grouped cylinders has also related ground acceleration at a site can be determined either
been noted at full scale16 but the available data is not suffi- by using this contour map and the recommended scale fac-
cient to quantitatively validate model test results. tors given in Table 4.3.2 or from the specific seismic record
4.2.4 Circumferential bendingThe equation for the pre- available at the site. It should be noted that a ductility factor
diction of the circumferential moments is based upon mea- of 1.33 is built into the scale factors of Table 4.3.2. For in-
sured pressure distributions.17,18 Comparative values for the stance, instead of 0.40, a scale factor of 0.30 is used for a site
bending moments as obtained from different distributions with an Av of 0.4.
are given in Reference 8. The use of a gust factor Gr in this
computation is based upon the assumption that the mean It should also be pointed out that the recommended design
pressure distribution (when expressed in coefficient form) is response spectrum is based on firm soil sites. Soil conditions
also applicable for short-duration gusts. at the firm site consist of bedrock with shear wave velocity
The increase in the loads near the tip is consistent with greater than 2500 ft/sec (762.0 m/sec) or stiff soils with de-
observations19 that the drag coefficient increases significant- posits less than 200 ft (61.0 m). For chimneys to be built on
ly in this region. shallow and soft or medium-stiff clays and sands, a greater
design response spectrum is anticipated. Guidelines provid-
4.3Earthquake loads ed in NEHRP21 to obtain a modified design response spec-
4.3.1The seismic intensity for any site within the United trum and the soil-structure interaction may be used.
States had previously been determined by the zonal map In place of a dynamic response spectrum analysis, a time
shown in Fig. 14 and 15 of ASCE 7-88. ASCE 7-95 no long- history dynamic analysis is permitted, provided a reliable
er references earthquake zones. Site-specific seismic intensi- time history of earthquake ground motion is used.

In the design of a chimney for horizontal earthquake forces, is below a certain value. A total vertical steel ratio in the
only one horizontal direction need be considered. Unlike chimney cross section less than that per the minimum re-
building structures, chimneys are generally axisymmetric, and quirement of ACI 318 for flexural members is permitted.
the orthogonal effects from two horizontal earthquakes acting Even when the maximum concrete compressive strain m
simultaneously in the two principal directions are negligible. is less than 0.003, the stress block is still considered rectan-
The effect of the vertical component of the earthquake on gular. However, in these instances, the stress level is modi-
the chimney has been determined to be of no design signifi- fied by a correction factor called the parameter Q. See
cance. An extensive time history analysis made by the Com- commentary on Section 5.5.1.
mittee shows that the vertical stresses from dead load and
horizontal seismic excitation are increased by at most a few
percent by the effects of vertical seismic excitations. This is 5.3Required strength
5.3.1The Committee noted that the fastest-mile provi-
principally because the psa responses to vertical and hori-
zontal acceleration do not occur simultaneously. sions in the 1988 edition of ACI 307 resulted in an increase
Design based on SRSS of vertical and horizontal earthquake in wind moments of between 0 and 50 percent when com-
forces will be unduly conservative. Therefore, the inclusion of pared with ACI 307-79. The use of a 3-sec gust wind speed
vertical seismic effects is not recommended by the Committee. results in further increases in axial bending moments, which
For cases in which the chimney lining (brick, steel, or oth- are 10 to 20 percent higher than moments calculated using
er materials) is supported by the concrete chimney shell, ei- fastest-mile speeds. Since the Committee has no data or in-
ther at the top of the chimney shell or at other intermediate formation concerning axial bending failures of chimney
points, a dynamic analysis including both concrete shell and shells designed using previously established procedures, it
liner should be used. Appropriate damping values should be was decided that the load factor for along-wind loads can be
used for the liner depending on its construction (e.g., 1.5 per- safely reduced from 1.7 to 1.3 when 3-sec gust wind
cent for steel liners, 4.0 percent for brick liners, and 2.0 per- speeds are used. It should be noted that a wind load factor of
cent for fiber reinforced plastic liners). 1.3 is consistent with that recommended by ASCE 7-95.
Similarly, the Committee has determined that the wind
4.5Deflection criteria load factor for along, plus across-wind loads can be reduced
The incorporation of the strength design method into the from 1.4 to 1.2.
standard will generally result in chimneys with thinner walls It should be noted that the vertical load factor reductions
in the lower portion and with higher deflections. The Com- incorporated in the current standard must be accompanied by
mittee felt that deflections under service loads should be a decrease in the strength reduction factor from 0.80 to
checked and that the deflections of chimneys designed by the 0.70, as described in Article 5.4.1. The net effect of the revi-
strength method should not vary greatly from the deflections sion to the vertical load factors, coupled with the change in
of existing chimneys designed by the working stress method. the strength factor, is relatively minor. Table 5.3.1 summa-
Limiting deflections also serves to reduce the effects of sec- rizes the effects of the revisions on 12 sample chimney shells
ondary bending moments. over a range of wind speeds. The geometry of the chimneys
However, the procedures in the ACI 307 1988 edition studied is as follows
were found to be too restrictive for shorter chimneys and
were modified in the 1995 standard. The deflection limit is
Chimney no. Height, ft TOD, ft BOD, ft
compared against the deflection calculated using uncracked
1 250 13.50 19.75
concrete sections and a fixed base.
Operation, access for inspection, lining type, etc., as well 2 275 28.00 28.00
as wind or earthquake-induced deflection, should be consid- 3 325 15.00 20.00
ered when establishing shell geometry. 4 375 20.00 32.00
5 425 35.00 39.00
STRENGTH METHOD 7 534 51.09 61.55
5.1General 8 545 33.00 55.00
Several significant revisions were made to this section,
9 613 73.00 73.00
most notably the load factors specified in 5.3 and the strength
reduction factor specified in 5.4. Portions of previous com- 10 700 60.00 78.00
mentary are, however, retained for reference. 11 773 43.00 70.00
5.1.2 The maximum compressive strain in the concrete is 12 978 73.00 114.78
assumed to be 0.003, or the maximum tensile strain in the
steel is assumed to be the fracture limit of 0.07, whichever is 5.3.2The Committee has determined that, based on the
reached first. If the steel fracture limit is reached first, the required use of velocity-related acceleration contours cou-
maximum concrete strain computed from the linear strain di- pled with a re-evaluation of the ductility inherent in chimney
agram is below 0.003. This deviates from the design assump- shells, a decrease in the ratio of the load factor to the strength
tions of ACI 318. For a given total vertical steel ratio, this reduction factor for earthquake forces from 2.34 to 2.04 is
may occur when the ratio of the vertical load to the moment warranted.

Table 5.3.1Comparison of along-wind design forced concrete beams came to be accepted after extensive
moments* comparative study between the analytical results using this
stress-strain relationship and the test data. The acceptability
Chimney of the rectangular stress block was based on the closeness be-
no. 90(3sg)/70(fm) 120(3sg)/100(fm) 150(3sg)/130(fm) tween the results of the analyses and the tests, comparing the
1 1.054 0.973 0.940 following: a) concrete compression; and b) moment of the
2 1.058 0.976 0.944 compression about the neutral axis (for a rectangular section
3 1.062 0.980 0.947
this is equivalent to the distance of the center of gravity of
4 1.065 0.983 0.950
5 1.069 0.988 0.955 the compression stress block from the neutral axis).
6 1.072 0.991 0.958 The preceding comparative study was based on the limited
7 1.073 0.993 0.960 test data available on reinforced concrete members of hollow
8 1.074 0.993 0.960 circular sections subjected to axial and transverse loads.22
9 1.079 0.998 0.965
Another special problem in arriving at the compressive
10 1.082 1.00 0.967
11 1.084 1.002 0.969 stress block for the analysis of reinforced concrete chimneys
12 1.090 1.008 0.976 was the fact that the maximum concrete compressive strain
*{Values of [1.3 M(3sg)/0.7]/1.7 M(fm)/0.8] for sample chimneys} is less than 0.003 when the fracture limit of steel is reached.
That is, the compressive stress block is not fully developed
(see commentary on Section 5.1.2). Thus, the previous at-
The load factor for determining the circumferential tempts at specifying the rectangular stress block for chimney
strength required to resist wind load has not been revised, al- cross sections needed to be modified.
though the reinforcement necessary to satisfy the higher mo-
A numerical study was undertaken by the 1988 Committee
ments may increase up to 15 percent on large-diameter
to find an equivalent rectangular stress block for the calcula-
chimneys. However, the Committee believes that this addi-
tion of the strength of chimney cross sections.
tional reinforcement is justified to minimize vertical crack-
ing of chimney shells. For a given value of , the results of the rectangular con-
crete compression stress block, expressed by dimensionless
5.4Design strength modifications of (a) and (b) previously stated, were com-
5.4.1In the calculation of limit-state bending moments, pared with the corresponding results using a more exact con-
allowance needs to be made for the moment caused by the crete stress-strain relationship23 given by Hognestad24 using
weight of the chimney in its deflected shape. The deflection a limiting strain of 0.003. The comparisons were made for
will be less than that calculated by standard methods due to hollow circular sections without openings and with single
the stiffening effect of the concrete in the cracked tension openings with values of of 10, 20, and 30 deg.
zone. The stiffening effect needs to be investigated further. It was concluded that for values of above 20 deg, or
The strength reduction factor for vertical strength has been
when the limiting strain of concrete is reached first, an equiv-
reduced from 0.80 to 0.70. A factor of 0.70 was chosen be-
alence between the two approaches is reached if the stress
cause it was found that the dead-load axial stress on the gross
level of the rectangular compression block is reduced by a
area exceeds 0.10 fc in the lower portions of some sample
chimneys. The effects of this revision are discussed more factor of 0.89. For values of below about 20 deg, a further
fully in Section 5.3. correction is required, leading to the values of the parameter
The formulas are also derived for cross sections with one Q defined in Section 5.5.1.
or two openings in, or partly in, the compression zone. No re- Thus the correction factor, or the parameter Q, achieves a
duction in the forces and moments due to reinforcing steel is close equivalence between the resulting values of (a) and (b)
made to allow for the reduction in the distance of the addi- previously stated for the thereby corrected rectangular
tional vertical reinforcement on each side of the opening, stress block and the stress block based on the Hognestad
provided per Section 4.4.6. stress-strain relationship, yet retains the simplicity of the
rectangular stress block.
5.5Nominal moment strength 5.5.6 Due to thermal exposure of the concrete chimneys,
The formulas for the nominal moment strength of chimney
the temperature drop across the wall reduces the nominal
cross sections are obtained based on the design assumptions
strength of chimney sections. This effect is accounted for by
of ACI 318, except as modified under Section 5.1.2 of this
standard. The derivations of the formulas are given in reducing the specified yield strength of steel and specified
Appendix A. compressive strength of concrete.
The formulas are derived for circular hollow cross sections The derivation of equations is included in Appendix A.
with a uniform distribution of vertical reinforcing steel
around the circumference. 5.6Design for circumferential bending
5.5.1 The parameter QThe use of a rectangular com- 5.6.2 The commentary on Section 5.5.6 applies equally to
pression stress block for rectangular and T-shaped rein- this section.

CHAPTER 6THERMAL STRESSES t = t fy /fc, therefore t fc = t fy

The derivations of the formulas for the vertical and hori-
r ( cos cos )
zontal stresses in concrete and steel, due to a temperature
drop only across the chimney wall, are given in Appendix B.
S1 = 2
r ( 1 cos )
- m E s t rtd

No revisions have been made to this section.

2 m E s t rt
- ( cos sin )
= -------------------------
6.2Vertical temperature stresses ( 1 cos )
6.2.2 The research data available to establish the coeffi-
cients of heat transfer through chimney lining and shell, es-
2 m E s t rt
pecially as they concern the heat transfer from gases to the - [ ( ) cos sin + sin ]
= -------------------------
surfaces and through ventilated air spaces between lining ( 1 cos )
and shell, are somewhat meager. Unless complete heat bal-
ance studies are made for the particular chimney, it is per- but
missible to use constants as determined or stated in this
standard. Est = Est (t fc/t fy)

= Es/fy t fc
Equations for the nominal strength of concrete chimney = Ke t fc
sections, with and without openings, are derived in this Ap-
The factored vertical load Pu and the corresponding nom-
inal moment strength Mn are expressed in dimensionless [ ( ) cos sin + sin ]
S 1 = 2 m K e t rtf c ------------------------------------------------------------------------
form, as given in Section 5.5.1 by Eq. (5-2) and (5-10), re- ( 1 cos )
Also a procedure to account for the temperature effects in or
the vertical and horizontal directions is outlined.
Forces are designated as follows: S1 = 2m Ke t rtfc Q
MDS = design moment strength of the section
S2 = 2( )t rtfy
Mn = nominal moment strength of the section
Mu = factored moment acting on the section but
P = total force in the concrete compressive
stress block t fy = t fc
Pu = factored vertical load acting on section
P, S1, S2, = moments of P, S1, S2, S3, S4 about neutral
S2 = 2( )rtt fc
S 3 , S 4 axis, respectively
S1 = tensile force where steel stress is below
yield point, from to P = 2( n1)rt 0.85fc
S2 = tensile force where steel stress is at yield
point, from to = 1.7rtfc( n1)
S3 = compressive force in steel where stress is
below yield point, from to = 1.7rtfc
S4 = compressive force in steel where stress is
at yield point, from 0 to where
= capacity-reduction factor = n 1

From Fig. 5.5.1(a) and 5.5.1(b) r ( cos cos )

cos = cos + [(1 - cos)/m](fy/Es) S3 = 2
r ( 1 cos )
- m E s t rtd
cos = 1 - 1 (1 - cos)
cos = cos - [(1 - cos)/m](fy/Es)
2 m E s t rt
Ke = Es/fy - ( sin cos )
= -------------------------
n1 = number of openings in the compression zone ( 1 cos )
= one-half opening angle
m = 0.07(1 - cos)/(1 + cos) 0.003 [ sin sin ( ) cos ]
= 2 m K e t rtf c -----------------------------------------------------------------------
= one-half angle between center lines for two ( 1 cos )
= variable function of = 2m Ke t rtfc Q3

S4 = 2trtfy S1 = m r2 tfc Ke t J1

= 2trtfc where

Sum of vertical forces must equal zero, therefore J1 = 2J/(1 cos)

Pu = P + S 3 + S 4 S 1 S 2 or

= 1.70rtfc + 2m Ke t rtfcQ3 + 2t rtfc J1 = [2( )cos2 + 3sin cos 4cos sin

+ sin cos + ( )]/(1 cos)
2m Ke t rtfcQ 2t rtfc( )

Pu /rtfc = K1 S2 = 2
t rtf y r ( cos cos )d

= 1.70 + 2mKet(Q3 Q) + = 2r2t tfy ( cos sin )
2t[ ( )]
= 2r2t tf y[( )cos + sin]
= 1.70 + 2m Ke t Q1 + 2t 1
tfy = t fc
= n1
S2 = 2r2tfct J2
sin sin ( ) cos
Q 1 = -------------------------------------------------------------------
( 1 cos ) where
1 = + J2 = ( )cos + sin

Ke = Es/fy 2 2
r ( cos cos )

t = tfy/fc
S3 = 2

r ( 1 cos )
m E s t rtd

2 2
r ( cos cos )
2 m K e t r tf c
S1 = 2

r ( 1 cos )
m E s t rtd = ----------------------------------
( 1 cos )
( cos 2 cos sin + cos ) d
2 2

2 m Es r t t
( cos 2 cos cos + cos ) d
2 2 2
= --------------------------- 2 m K e t r tf c sin 2
( 1 cos ) - --- + -------------- 2 cos sin + cos
= ----------------------------------
( 1 cos ) 2 4
2 m K e t r tf c sin 2 -
- cos 2 cos sin +
2 2
= ----------------------------------

--- + ------------- 2 m K e t r tf c
( 1 cos ) 2 4 = ----------------------------------
( 1 cos )
2 m K e t r tf c
2 [(1/2)( - ) + (1/4)(sin2 sin2) 2cos(sin sin)
= ----------------------------------
- + ( )cos2]
( 1 cos )
[( )cos2 2cos(sin sin) + (1/2)( ) Let
+ (1/4)(sin 2 - sin 2)]
J3 = 2[ ]/(1 cos)
Let J = [ ] or
= ( - )cos2 + 2 sin cos - 2 cos sin J3 = [ - + sin cos sin cos 4cos(sin sin)
+ (1/2)sin cos (1/2)sin cos + (1/2)( ) + 2( )cos2]/(1 cos)

or therefore

2J = 2( )cos2 + 3sin cos 4cos sin S3 = m r2 tfcKe t J3

+ sin cos + ( )

therefore S4 = 2
0 t rtfy r ( cos cos ) d

2 Sum of moments about neutral axis must equal zero,

= 2r t tf y ( sin cos ) 0

= 2r2t tfy (sin cos) Mn = Purcos + P + S1 + S2 + S3 + S4

therefore = Purcos + 1.70r2tfcR + mr2tfcKetJ1 + 2r2tfctJ2

+ mr2tfcKetJ3 + 2r2tfctJ4
S4 = 2r2tfctJ4
= Purcos + 1.70r2tfcR + mr2tfcKet(J1 + J3)
where + 2r2tfct(J2 + J4)

J4 = sin cos therefore

For P with one opening in compression zone [Fig. Mn/r2tfc = (Pucos/rtfc) + K2

P = 2rt0.85fc
sin - r cos K2 = 1.70R + mKet(J1 + J3) + 2t(J2 + J4)

r ( cos cos ) d
= 1.70r tfc(sin cos sin + cos)
K2 = 1.70R + mKetQ2 + 2tK

therefore Q2 = [( )(1 + 2cos2) + (1/2)(4sin2 + sin2 sin2)

4cos(sin + sin - sin)]/(1 cos)
P = 1.70r2tfc[sin ( )cos sin]

For P with two openings in compression zone [Fig. and

K = sin + sin + ( )cos
P = 2rt0.85fc
Multiply both sides of the equation by 1/K1 = rtfc/Pu
sin - r cos

r ( cos cos ) d
rtfc/Pu Mn/r2tfc = rtfc/Pu Pucos/rtfc + 1/K1 K2

= 1.70r2tfc[sin cos sin( + ) + sin( ) + 2cos] therefore

K3 = Mn/Pur = cos + K2/K1
P = 1.70r2tfc[sin ( 2)cos sin( + ) + sin( )
Mn = K3Pur
Generalizing and require
P = 1.70r2tfc R MDS = Mn Mu
For two symmetric openings partly in compression zone
R = sin ( n1)cos (n1/2)[sin( + ) sin( )] [Fig.5.5.1(c)]
For no openings
n1 = = = 0
For one opening in compression zone
n1 = 1
The situation is the same as for no openings in the com-
For two openings in compression zone pression zone with

n1 = 2 =

= At ultimate, effect on fc is

R = sin - cos fc(v) = fc - Ft(v) f CTV

and all other values are the same as before.

Nominal strength for circumferential bending (compres-
Openings in the tension zoneOpenings in the tension
sion on inside)
zone are ignored since the tensile strength of the concrete is
neglected, and the bars cut by the openings are replaced at
the sides of the openings.
Openings in the compression zoneOpenings in the com-
pression zone are ignored in calculations of the forces in the
compression reinforcement only, since the cut bars are re-
placed at the sides of the openings.

Vertical temperature stresses in reinforcement; effect on fy

fSTV = tensile temperature stress in outside steel
f STV = compressive temperature stress in inside steel
fSTV and f STV at service loads

---------------------- = --------------
( 1 + 1 ) 1 + 1
= ratio, outside steel area to total steel area
1 1
---------------------- = -------------
( 1 + 1 ) 1 + 1
= ratio, inside steel area to total steel area

Ft(v)= load factor for temperature combined with W or E

= 1.4

At ultimate, effect on fy on windward side

Usable yield force = yield force - Ft(v) tensile force in
outside steel + Ft(v) compressive force in inside steel
Dividing by total steel area As
F t ( v ) -------------- A s f STV f y ( c ) = f y 1.05f STC
1 + 1
f y ( v ) = f y ------------------------------------------------------- + for combination with temperature
As f c ( c ) = f c 1.05f CTC

1 = ratio outside steel area to total area

F t ( v ) ------------- - A s f STV 1 = ratio inside steel area to outside steel area
1 + 1
- t = area outside steel, in.
As 1t = area inside steel, in.

therefore Stress in compression steel

[ ( a 1 ) ( 1 2 ) ]
Ft ( v ) - 0.003E s
f CS = ------------------------------------------------
f y ( v ) = f y -------------
-(f f ) a 1
1 + 1 STV 1 STV
a 1 ( 1 2 )
f CS = ----------------------------------- 0.003 E s f y ( c ) (A-1)
It is conservative and convenient to use the same value for a
fy on the leeward side as well.
Stress in tensile steel
Vertical temperature stresses in concrete effect on fc
2 ( a 1 )
f CTV = concrete compressive stress due to temperature - 0.003E s
f TS = -----------------------------
alone at service loads a 1

1 2 a Since rotation is prevented, corresponding stresses are

f TS = --------------------- 0.003 E s f y ( c ) (A-2) induced
In concrete (inside)
Load in compression steel c = tect = teTxc
PCS = fCS 1t (A-3) and

Load in tensile steel f CTV = tecTxEc

PTS = fTSt (A-4) In outside reinforcement

Load in concrete compression block s = te(2 - c)t

PCB = 0.85fc(c)ta (A-5) and

V = 0, PCB + PCS - PTS = 0 (A-6) fSTV = te(2 - c)TxEs

Find the value of a that satisfies this equation. = ratio of total area of vertical outside face reinforce-
ment to total area of concrete chimney shell at sec-
M about PTS, Mn = {PCB[2 - (a/2)] + PCS(22 - 1)}t tion under consideration
1 = ratio of inside face vertical reinforcement area to
MDS = Mn Mu (A-7) outside face vertical reinforcement area
Note: For compression on outside
( c 1 + 2 ) n
fy(c) = fy f STV ------------------------------
- f CTV
fc(c) = fc = te(c - 1 + 2)TxnEc

therefore ignore temperature. Eq. (A-3) becomes For c

PCS = fCS t V = 0, f CTV (ct/2) + f STV 1t

and Eq. (A-4) becomes = fSTVt

PTS = fTS 1t tecTxEc(ct/2) + te(c 1 + 2)TxnEc1t


The equations for maximum vertical stresses in concrete c2 + 2n1c + 2n1(2 - 1) + 2nc 2n2 = 0
and steel due to a temperature drop only across the concrete
wall with two layers on reinforcement are derived as follows. c2 + 2n(1 + 1)c + 2n[1(2 - 1) 2] = 0
Unrestrained rotation caused by a temperature differential
of Tx c2 + 2n(1 + 1)c 2n[2 + 1(1 2)] = 0

te = te Tx /t c = n(1 + 1) +

2. PCI Design HandbookPrecast and Prestressed Concrete, Pre-
[ n ( 1 + 1 ) ] + 2 n [ 2 + 1 ( 1 2 ) ] stressed Concrete Institute, 3rd Edition, 1985.
3. Warnes, C. E., Precast Concrete Connection Details for All Seismic
Zones, Concrete International, V. 14, No. 11, Nov. 1992, pp. 36-44.
The derivation for the equations for the maximum horizontal
4. Simiu, E., and Scanlon, R. H., Wind Effects on Structures, 2nd edition,
stresses in concrete and steel due to a temperature drop only, John Wiley and Sons, 1986.
across the concrete wall with two layers of reinforcement, is 5. Hollister, S. C., Engineering Interpretation of Weather Bureau
similar to that for the vertical temperature stresses Records for Wind Loading on Structures, Wind Loads on Buildings and
Replace with Structures, Building Science Series, No. 30, National Bureau of Standards,
Washington, D.C., 1969, pp. 151-164.
1 with 1 6. Vickery, B. J., On the Reliability of Gust Loading Factors, Wind
f CTV with f CTC Loads on Buildings and Structures, Building Science Series, No. 30,
fSTV with fSTC National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1969, pp. 93-104.
c with c 7. Vickery, B. J., and Basu, R. I., Simplified Approaches to the Evalua-
tion of the Across-Wind Response of Chimneys, Journal of Wind Engi-
2 with 2 neering and Industrial Aerodynamics, V. 14, Amsterdam, 1985, pp. 153-
then 166.
8. Rumman, W. S., Reinforced Concrete Chimneys, Handbook of
fCTC = tecTxEc Concrete Engineering, 2nd Edition, Mark Fintel, ed., Van Nostrand Rein-
hold Co., New York, 1985, pp. 565-586.
9. Basu, R. I., Across-Wind Responses of Slender Structures of Circular
fSTC = te(2 - c)TxEs Cross-Section to Atmospheric Turbulence, PhD thesis, Faculty of Engi-
neering Science, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 1982.
10. Vickery, B. J., and Basu, R. I., Response of Reinforced Concrete
c = -n(1 + 1) + Chimneys to Vortex Shedding, Engineering Structures, V. 6, No. 4, Guild-
ford, Oct. 1984, pp. 324-333.
11. Davenport, A. G., Gust Loading Factors, Proceedings, ASCE, V.
2 93, ST3, June 1967, pp. 11-34.
[ n ( 1 + 1 ) ] + 2 n [ 2 + 1 ( 1 2 ) ]
12. Simiu, E.; Marshall, R. D.; and Haber, S., Estimation of Along-
Wind Building Response, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 103, ST7, July 1977,
pp. 1325-1338.
13. Vickery, B., Across-Wind Loading on Reinforced Concrete Chim-
C.1Recommended references neys of Circular Cross Section, Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Report,
American Concrete Institute BLWT-3-1993, University of Western Ontario, Dec. 1993.
307-69 Specification for the Design and Construction of 14. Zdravkokvich, M. M., Review of Flow Interference Effects between
Reinforced Concrete Chimneys Two Cylinders in Various Arrangements, Journal of Fluids Engineering,
307-88 Standard Practice for the Design and Construc- V. 99, 1977, p. 618.
15. Vickery, B. J., and Daly, A., Wind Tunnel Modelling as a Means of
tion of Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete Predicting the Response of Chimneys to Vortex Shedding, Engineering
Chimneys Structures, V. 6, No. 4, Guildford, Oct. 1984, pp. 363-368.
318 Building Code Requirements for Structural 16. Ruscheweyh, H., Problems with In-Line Stacks: Experience with
Concrete Full-Scale Objects, Engineering Structures, V. 6, No. 4, Guildford, Oct.
1984, pp. 340-343.
505-54 Standard Specification for the Design and Con- 17. Dryden, H. H., and Hill, G. C., Wind Pressure on Circular Cylinders
struction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys and Chimneys, Research Paper No. 221, National Bureau of Standards,
550R-93 Design Recommendations for Precast Concrete Washington, D.C., 1930. Also, NBS Journal of Research, V. 5, Sept. 1930.
Structures 18. ASCE Task Committee on Wind Forces, Wind Forces on Struc-
tures, Transactions, ASCE, V. 126, Part II, 1961, pp. 1124-1198.
American Society of Civil Engineers
19. Okamoto, T., and Yagita, M., Experimental Investigation Flow
ASCE 7-88 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Past a Circular Cylinder of Finite Length Placed Normal to a Uniform
Other Structures (formerly ANSI A58.1) Stream, Bulletin, Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers (Tokyo), No.
ASCE 7-95 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and 16, 1973, p. 805.
20. Task Committee on Steel Chimney Liners, Design and Construction
Other Structures of Steel Chimney Liners, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,
1975, 226 pp.
American Concrete Institute 21. NEHRP 1994 Recommended Provisions for the Development of
P.O. Box 9094 Seismic Regulations for New Buildings Prepared by the Building Seismic
Safety Council.
Farmington Hills, Mich. 48333-9094 22. Mokrin, Z. A. R., and Rumman, W. S., Ultimate Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Members of Hollow Circular Sections Subjected to
American Society of Civil Engineers Monotonic and Cyclic Bending, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 5,
1801 Alexander Bell Drive Sept.-Oct. 1985, pp. 653-656.
23. Rumman, W. S., and Sun, R. T., Ultimate Strength Design of
Reston, Va. 20191 Reinforced Concrete Chimneys, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 74, No.
4, Apr. 1977, pp. 179-184.
C.2Cited references 24. Hognestad, E., Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in
1. PCI Manual for Structural Design of Architectural Precast Concrete, Reinforced Concrete Members, Bulletin No. 399, Engineering Experi-
Prestressed Concrete Institute, 1977. ment Station, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1951, 128 pp.