See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309762437

A Simplified Method to Design Cooling Tower Shells for Fire Situation

Conference Paper · October 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 715

2 authors, including:

Omid Pouran
Bergische Universität Wuppertal
6 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Omid Pouran on 23 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CUB journal 187.ai 1 06/04/16 14:08

JOURNAL OF

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL

Vol. 57 (2016) No. 1

STRUCTURES

Prof. D. h-C Eng .E. TORROJA, founder

SPECIAL ISSUE
COOLING TOWERS
Guest Editor: R. HARTE

Vol. 57 (2016) No. 1

March n. 187

March n. 187
international association
for shell and spatial structures ISSN: 1028-365X

PORTADA Y CONTRA.indd 1 28/12/04 07:06:09

 Journal
Journal
VOL. 57 (2016) No. 1 contents
n. 187 March
Preface
Special Issue “Cooling Towers” 3
R. Harte
Technical Papers
Developments in the Construction of Cooling Tower Shells and Columns 5
Since the 1930’s
G. Eastman
Buckling of Natural Draft Cooling Towers and Structural Safety 13
W.B. Krätzig, M. Andres and U. Eckstein

Comparison of Design and Analysis of Cooling Towers and Concrete Chimneys 25

R. Harte and O. Pouran

Numerical Analysis of Flow Around Cylinders at Trans-Critical Reynolds 35

Numbers With and Without Surface Roughness
A.A.S. Burger and H.C.R. Reuter

Extreme Wind Loads on Super-Large Cooling Towers 49

X. Chen, L. Zhao, S. Cao, Y. Ge and H. Miyagi

Behaviour of R/C Cooling Tower Shell Under Uneven Foundation Settlement 59

T. Hara

Seismic Considerations in the Design of Columns for Large Cooling Towers 67

M. Angelides

Suitability of Cooling Towers in Areas Prone to Earthquakes 75

D. Casucci, M. Andres and R. Wörmann

Numerical Analysis of Concrete Cracking in Shell Structures Due to 83

Restraining Stresses in Early Age Concrete
J. Bockhold, T. Putke and T. Vossen

Natural Draft Cooling Towers for New Nuclear Units in the United States 91
K. Scott and Q.H. Tran

Design of Solar Enhanced Natural Draft Dry Cooling Tower for Solar Thermal 97
Power Plants
Z. Guan, H. Gurgenci and Z. Zou
COVER: Figure from paper by W.B. Krätzig, M. Andres and U. Eckstein
0B

IASS Secretariat: CEDEX-Laboratorio Central de Estructuras y Materiales

Alfonso XII, 3; 28014 Madrid, Spain
Tel: 34 91 3357491; Fax: 34 91 3357422; iass@cedex.es; http://www.iass-structures.org
Printed by SODEGRAF ISSN:1028-365X Depósito legal: M. 1444-1960
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS

COMPARISON OF DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF COOLING

TOWERS AND CONCRETE CHIMNEYS
Reinhard HARTE1 and Omid POURAN2
1 2 1 2
Professor, MSc., Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Germany, harte@uni-wuppertal.de, pouran@uni-wuppertal.de

Editor’s Note: Manuscript submitted 27 January 2015; revision received 18 January 2016; accepted 19 January. This
paper is open for written discussion, which should be submitted to the IASS Secretariat no later than September 2016.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20898/j.iass.2016.187.766

ABSTRACT

Natural draught cooling towers and concrete chimneys are subject to comparable design requirements with
respect to their load capacity due to extreme wind loading and durability due to thermal action and chemical
attack. This paper compares the relevant design methods in order to verify the ultimate and serviceability limit
states, and identifies both similarities and deviations in the relevant guidelines and design recommendations.

Keywords: Cooling towers, industrial chimneys, concrete shells

1. INTRODUCTION 2. PROOF OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY IN

In the design of industrial concrete chimneys and
natural draught cooling towers, structural and
performance characteristics have to be considered.
The performance strongly depends on the optimized
air flow, achieved by the minimization of
distortions and resistances. This aspect will not be
considered in the present paper. The structural
integrity is characterized by the ultimate limit
resistance against dynamic wind action and the
serviceability limit resistance against constraint
damages due to uneven settlements – only
important for cooling towers – and especially to
thermal constraints. Concrete cracks induced by
thermal constraints during power plant operation
are responsible for the limited durability of RC
structures. Detailed investigations of both damaged
chimneys [11] and damaged cooling towers [6, 7]
have shown that mechanical actions like wind load
are not the only reason for the observed crack
patterns. They must have been accompanied by
thermal effects due to constraints – and in case of
cooling towers – by additional hygric effects during
power plant operation.
CASE OF WIND LOAD
2.1. Beam theory versus shell theory
In general, chimneys are calculated on the basis of
beam theory, whereas for cooling towers the use of
shell theory is inevitable. In the past, a first
approach for cooling towers was the so-called
membrane theory, which neglects all bending
effects. Nowadays, both the increased requirements
due to stiffer column systems and inhomogeneous
loading, such as the consideration of interference
effects, or in the case of flue-gas inflow, or the
consideration of inhomogeneous soil conditions has
elevated the shell bending theory as the first choice.
This has been further driven by rapid improvements
of software tools and increasing performance of
hardware facilities. Nevertheless, the vertical
stresses σ22, or the meridional stress resultants n22
respectively, due to the overturning wind-moment
play a dominant role in designing the structure and
in dimensioning the reinforcement, both for
chimneys and cooling towers.

Copyright © 2016 by Reinhard Harte and Omid Pouran.

Published by the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) with permission. 25
 Vol. 57 (2016) No. 1 March n. 187

pv pv
w w

Figure 1: Soil pressure distribution pv under wind load w for slim and wide cylindrical shells

Fig. 1 shows the load-bearing behavior of a slim
and a wide cylindrical shell, both calculated with
shell theory. The side view of the soil pressure pv
(corresponding to the vertical stresses σ22) of the
slim cylinder (on the left) shows the linear behavior
of stresses, as we expect it from beam theory,
whereas for the wide cylinder (on the right) the
pressure distribution differs significantly. It
corresponds to the ovalizing of the circular cross
section due to the reduced bending stiffness,
resulting in tensile stresses (uplift) in both the luv
and the lee side of the shell, whereas its side flanks
are subjected to compressive stresses. It can be
proved by numerical parameter studies, up to which
diameter-to-height ratio (d/h) beam theory provides
a proper approximation, and at which ratios shell
theory need to be considered (Fig. 2). Unfortunately
the results due to beam theory are not on the safe
side, as the meridional stresses due to shell theory
are larger. This has been proved and quantified by
parameter studies [9] and for real chimneys [10].
2.2. Cylindrical shape versus hyperbolic shape
Numerical investigations have further shown that
the hyperbolic shape has positive effect on the load-
bearing characteristic of cooling tower shells. This
can be demonstrated via comparison with stiffened
and un-stiffened cylindrical shells (Fig. 3). Here the
overall dimensions – height, diameter and wall
thickness – have been adopted from the worldwide
largest cooling tower in Niederaußem [1]: height
200 m, diameter at the top 88 m and at the base
152 m, wall thickness 24 cm. It is obvious that the
meridional stress resultants n22 due to wind load and
calculated via shell theory are more than 10 times
larger than the results via beam theory. And they
are still 3 times higher than the compressive stress
resultants due to dead-weight, thus a high amount
of reinforcement is required. It is clear that the wall
thickness and thus the local bending stiffness are
too small to hold the circular cross section. The
maximum radial deflection vmax and the deformation
pattern demonstrate this clearly.

Figure 2: Maximum meridional stress resultants n22 with respect to various h/d (height/diameter) and t/h
(thickness/height) ratios for cases with constant h = 213 m [9]

26
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS
height [m]
200 m
beam theory
152 m
Figure 3: Cylindrical versus hyperbolic shell shape
The use of ring-stiffeners will minimize the
ovalization and thus will reduce the meridional
stress resultants drastically, especially in the
vicinity of the lower shell edge. A similar effect can
be achieved, if a hyperbolic shell shape is used. The
ovalization is still apparent in the shell’s upper part,
but will reduce in the doubly-curved lower part. It
seems that the combination of both hyperbolic
shape and ring stiffeners gives the best-possible
solution. But due to construction requirements of
climbing formwork systems, un-stiffened shells
with hyperbolic shape are still the favorite
geometrical choice for cooling towers.
3. PROOF OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY IN
CASE OF CONSTRAINTS
3.1. Thermal constraints
In general, two thermal impact scenarios have been
identified to be relevant for the structural integrity
of cooling tower shells: operational temperature in
winter season and atmospheric temperature during
power plant outage in summer season. Operational
conditions in winter season with minimum
atmospheric temperatures outside the shell and
increased vapour temperatures inside are relevant
for the maximum bending constraints in the shell
wall. According to German standards, in winter a
minimum atmospheric temperature of –24 °C has to
be assumed. This might differ decisively in other
vmax = 9.3 cm
n22
scale factor: 400
vmax = 10.2 cm
scale factor: 200
vmax = 70.5 cm
scale factor: 40
wind
dead weight
max. n22 [kN/m]
countries and have to be specified either by national
codes or by meteorological expertise.
The operational thermal conditions of the cooling
water circuit are more or less equal for all sites
worldwide. In general, a maximum water
temperature of about +50 °C in the water
distribution pipes can be expected. Higher
temperatures have to be looked upon as an
accidental and abnormal situation.
Under winter conditions, the cooling water outlet
temperature approaches 0 °C resulting in the for-
mation of ice. To avoid freezing, cooling tower
suppliers generally employ two methods for winter
operation. The first is to isolate sections of the
water distribution system herewith reducing the
effective volume of fill and the water flow rate
passing through the cooling tower. The excess
water is bypassed directly to the cooling tower
pond. Another method is to reduce the air flow rate
through the tower by using water curtains at the air
inlet that preheat the air before entering the cooling
tower. Isolation of the cooling tower can be done
either axi-symmetrically or asymmetrically. For
axi-symmetric isolation either an outer annulus,
concentric ring or inner core region can be isolated.
For asymmetric isolation, sections are isolated that
are non axi-symmetric resulting in an uneven air
temperature distribution inside the cooling tower.
27
 Vol. 57 (2016) No. 1 March n. 187
(a) Design case (b) Winter with core isolation
Figure 4: Temperature contour plots in Kelvin for a radial cooling tower section [8]
Differences between the shell wall temperatures at
corresponding locations inside and outside of the
cooling tower result in thermal stresses in the shell.
These temperature differences along the height of
the cooling tower need to be estimated, when
designing natural draught wet-cooling towers, as
provided in the guideline [15]. To evaluate the
relevant vertical temperature profile along the shell
wall, axi-symmetric CFD models [13], are used.
Fig. 4 shows results for a typical wet-cooling tower
for winter conditions (Ta = –24 °C and φ = 100 %).
For annular outer region isolation, the inner shell
wall temperature is close to ambient temperature of
–24 °C whereas for core isolation, the temperature
is calculated to be between 10 °C about 15 °C
below the water inlet temperature of 30 °C, where
the water temperature can increase to more than
35 °C during steam turbine bypass operation,
depending on the fill system and the isolation
philosophy. In the region below the water
distribution system and in the spray zone, a shell
temperature equal to the water inlet temperature
should be assumed for the case of core isolation.
According to [15] the following operational
temperatures TOP for the design of the cooling tower
28
(c) Winter with annular isolation
shell are relevant in Germany in case of winter
outside temperatures of –24 °C and considering
inside temperatures of +25 °C in vapour zone and
+35 °C in rain zone:
- temperature gradient in vapour zone
∆TMOP = +49 K
- temperature gradient in spray zone
∆TMOP = +59 K
Then the effective temperature gradient ∆TMOPeff
across the cross-section of the shell wall can be
determined using the heat resistance coefficients
Rsi = Rse and a relevant heat conductivity for
concrete.
The resulting compressive stresses are higher than
the analyzed linear stress state due to the thermal
gradient ∆TMOP according to [15], but they are far
away from the concrete compressive strength. The
more relevant stresses are the max. tensile stresses
of 5.2 N/mm² in the vapour zone and 6.2 N/mm² in
the spray zone (Fig. 5). These tensile stresses are
lower than the analyzed linear stress state and thus
they have been already considered in the design
concept [8]:
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS

wall thickness 0.30 m wall thickness 0.80 m

+25°C
25
+35°C 25

20 20

15 15 2h
4h
10 10
6h

temperature [°C]
5 5
temperature [°C]

8h

0 0 12 h

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20

-25 -24°C -25

initial state initial state -24°C
-30 -30
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

12 12

10 10

8 8 (VGB 2010)
(VGB 2010)
6 6
meridional stress [N/mm2 ]
meridional stress [N/mm2 ]

4 4

2 2

0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4

-6 -6

-8 -8

-10 -10

-12 -12

-14 -14
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

Figure 5: Time-dependent temperature change in the wall cross-section and resulting thermal stresses (left
graphs: vapour zone – right graphs: spray zone)

Vapour zone: d = 30 cm and ∆TMOP = +49 K radial support, which constrain the ovalization of
⇒ ∆TMOPeff = +29.9 K the shell, do not seriously influence the load bearing
capacity of both the support system and the lower
σ = E/[2(1-ν)] · αT · ∆TMOPeff = 0.2125 · 29.9 K ring beam. Numerical simulations have shown that
= 6.4 N/mm² > 6.2 N/mm² = σ12h (1) the effect of non-axisymmetric temperature
distribution can be neglected, as far as a rotating
Spray zone: d = 80 cm and ∆TMOP = +59 K change period of 12 hours is not exceeded. In this
⇒ ∆TMOPeff = +47.6 K case the assumptions of [15] covers the stresses due
to sectorwise operation. For summer outage an
σ = E/[2(1-ν)] · αT · ∆TMOPeff = 0.2125 · 47.6 K effective temperature gradiant ∆TMSeff = –25 K has
= 10.1 N/mm² > 5.2 N/mm² = σ12h (2) to be considered.

with Young’s modulus E = 34000 N/mm2 (C35/45), For concrete chimneys, thermal stresses are mainly
Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.2 and the thermal strain considered in circumferential direction, i.e. the
coefficient αT = 1.0 · 10-5. It is obvious that the resulting “local” bending moments MT are
thick lower ring beam has a larger thermal compared to the relevant concrete strength in the
resistance than the thinner wall. Consequently the state of cracking, thus limiting the admissible hoop
resulting tensile stresses after operating of the fill moments due to mechanical and thermal action
sector for 12 hours will be far away from the max. [11]. [5] does not specify any values for thermal
stresses due to stationary temperature gradient acc. gradients on the concrete chimney walls, whereas it
[15]. Thus non-axisymmetric effects on the rigid is suggested by [2] to limit the temperature

29
 Vol. 57 (2016) No. 1 March n. 187
difference to 60 K. According to Annex A of [4]
they have to be assumed or analysed for the
relevant state of operation of the specific chimney.
3.2. Hygric constraints
Besides thermal constraints, co-called “hygric
effects” due to different moisture contents might
influence the structural behavior of RC structures.
This is especially valid for wet-cooling towers,
which are characterized by high moisture contents
inside the shell. This moisture causes swelling of
the concrete, whereas the drier ambient atmosphere
will result in shrinkage. Both the thermal effects,
inside warmer than outside, plus the hygric effects
(inside more wet than outside) will cause
compressive stresses on the shell’s inner face and
tensile stresses on its outer face. This might initiate
bending cracks, especially in vertical direction [12].
In classical shell theory, strains due to thermal
effects are generally defined by the 1. strain tensor
α t(αβ), corresponding to a constant temperature
distribution over thickness ∆TN, and the 2. strain
tensor β t(αβ), corresponding to a linear temperature
gradient ∆TM. In a first step this linearization over
thickness can be transferred to the hygric case
(shrinkage and swelling), but the transport of
moisture behaves considerably slower than heat
transfer. Thus the linearization of hygric stresses
and strains has to be looked upon as an insufficient
simplification.
A more precise modeling of the transport
mechanisms of heat and moisture and its
consequences on the structural behavior can be
achieved by a layered element concept, where the
above mentioned definitions of strains tensors have
to be replaced by modeling strains in each layer of a
layered finite element concept. This will produce
eigenstresses in the shell wall, which in
combination with the mechanical stresses and
thermal constraints will end in a highly nonlinear
inelastic behavior of the concrete wall [17].
As the moisture contents depends on the humidity
of the in-draught air and as the moisture transport
depends on the concrete density and other transport
coefficients, it is not easy to specify the relevant
hygric strains. Thus hygric effects still have to be
covered by the assumptions in [15] for defining
thermal gradients across the wall thickness. This
has to be taken into account when making use of
30
more realistic thermal analysis methods to reduce
the thermal loading, as at the first glance they might
be conservative, which in general is not the case.
Dry-cooling towers and concrete chimneys are only
affected by ambient moisture, like rain, which do
not enforce the structure to be subjected to great
stresses.
3.3. Soil-structure interaction
In general, chimneys are not affected by
inhomogeneous soil properties, as far as sloping of
the centre axis will not endanger the overall
equilibrium and can be considered by 2nd order
beam theory. For cooling towers, bad soil properties
and the resulting uneven settlements might induce
bending effects into the shell, especially at the
intersections to the columns and to the upper ring
[3]. In this case it might be necessary to employ
holistic numerical models with both structural and
soils elements [14].
4. SAFETY CONCEPT FOR ULTIMATE AND
SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES
4.1. Codes and guidelines
The new generation of European standards is based
on a partial safety concept to verify ultimate limit
states (ULS) and serviceability limit states (SLS).
The verification of ULS is necessary to avoid
structural failure, whereas the verification of SLS
should guarantee durability and long-term
availability.Tab. 1 shows the codes and guidelines
from some countries, which are currently valid for
the design and construction of cooling towers and
concrete chimneys, beside other standard design
codes. Only the CICIND-code is promoted to be
valid world-wide. Both ACI codes propose the
strength method in design of cooling towers and
concrete chimneys, whereas the other codes and
guidelines given in Tab. 1 are based on ULS and
SLS verification.
4.2. Ultimate limit state ULS
To verify the ULS, both linear and non-linear
analysis methods may be applied. Using linear
analysis, a cross-section design with stress
resultants due to nominal load cases will quantify
the reinforcement. Such a cross-section design is
also possible using non-linearly calculated stresses,
or an ultimate load analysis may be performed.
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS
Table 1: Codes and guidelines exclusively relevant for cooling towers and concrete chimneys
Cooling Towers
VGB – R610 e GBT 50102-2003 ACI 334.2R-91
Germany China USA
Regarding the defined design situations,
characteristic values Fk for the essential actions are
to be considered: Gravity (dead) load G, Wind load
W, Temperature T, Shrinkage S, Indirectly induced
soil settlements B, Seismic actions AE and
accidental actions A. Referring to EN 1990 and EN
1992-1-1 different design situations need to be
analysed for the different design limit states.
Accordingly, appropriate safety factors and
combination values for the actions Fd = Fk ⋅ γF as
well as the partial safety factors for the material
capacities Rd = Rk / γR have been defined [15]. In
previous papers [16] it has been shown that in case
of strong wind action as the dominant load case
with γQ = 1.50, the thermal effects can be totally
neglected when approaching the ultimate load
(structural failure). In the general regions of the
shell, the cross-section performs sufficient
deformability and rotation capacity, so that the
permission of EN 1992-1-1 to set γQ = 0 can be
applied, as it has been considered in [15].
The VGB-guideline [15] offers nonlinear analysis
methods as an alternative to the linear structural
analysis. Using non-linear reinforced concrete
models, two concepts are possible: A cross-section
design or an ultimate load design. In the second
case a global safety factor γR = 1.30 for persistent
and transient design situations respectively γR = 1.10
for accidental design situations including seismic
actions has to be introduced, which represents the
structural resistance. The relevant load
combinations under the dominant actions gravity
load G, wind load W and temperature T are to be
investigated by an incremental-iterative procedure
by means of an amplification factor λ. According to
[15] the following load combinations need to be
investigated:
λ (γG G + 1.50 T + 0.90 W) λu ≥ γR = 1.3 (3)
λ (γG G + 1.50 W) λu ≥ γR = 1.3 (4)
Concrete Chimneys
CICIND EN 13084 ACI 307-08
International Europe USA
In addition to the verifications of the different
design limit states a buckling safety of γB ≥ 5 is
required with respect to characteristic values for the
combination of actions G + We + Wi , denoting G -
dead load, We external wind pressure and Wi
internal suction. The resulting design procedure is
appropriate to determine the wall thickness
distribution of the shell.
4.3. Serviceability limit state SLS
To verify the SLS, the limitation of crack width,
displacements and stresses are the main
corresponding issues. The specific variables in
general are calculated linearly. Regarding cooling
tower design only the limitation of crack width is
relevant, as defined in Tab. 2.
In case of designing the concrete chimneys,
verification should be carried out for both
displacement and crack width criteria. Deflection of
the chimney is to be evaluated by considering the
relative displacements between the lining and
windshield structure. The second criterion, crack
width limitation, shall be fulfilled only in
circumferential direction (vertical cracks). This is
considered by taking into account the thermal
induced stresses due to imposed deformations
caused by the linear temperature difference between
the outer and inner surface of the concrete wall. The
lowest ambient temperature and the highest
temperature on the internal surface shall be
determined for each specific project. In this regard,
there is no recommendation given in [5] to limit the
temperature difference gradient ∆TM, whereas
according to [2] the highest temperature difference
of 60 K shall not be exceeded. The thermal effect is
assumed to be of permanent nature and therefore it
may be considered as the only relevant action. The
corresponding crack width limitations according to
[2] and [5] are listed in Tab. 2.
31
 Vol. 57 (2016) No. 1 March n. 187

Table 2: Relevant SLS and specifications for the limited crack width wk according to [2, 4, 15]

0.3 columns foundation

VGB – R 610 e
𝐺𝐺 + 0.50𝑊𝑊 + 0.50𝑇𝑇𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂
𝐺𝐺 + 0.70𝑇𝑇𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂
𝑤𝑤𝑘𝑘 � � ≤ lim 𝑤𝑤𝑘𝑘 lim wk (mm)
𝐺𝐺 + 0.50𝑇𝑇𝑆𝑆
0.2 shell
𝐺𝐺 + 0.50𝑇𝑇𝑊𝑊
G, W, TOP, TS, TW according to [15]
0.15 water basin

0.2 aggressive environment

Serviceability Limit States SLS

𝑤𝑤𝑘𝑘 (1.0𝑇𝑇𝐺𝐺 + 1.0𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴 ) ≤ lim 𝑤𝑤𝑘𝑘

0.89
𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠2 ⋅ 𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠 lim wk (mm)
CICIND

𝑤𝑤𝑘𝑘 = � � in
0.4 ⋅ 106 ⋅ 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 0.67
circumferential
direction
T, thermal effects appear in the calculation 0.3 normal environment
models as temperature differences (Index G,
gas and A, ambient) between the inner and
outer faces of the shell

𝑤𝑤𝑘𝑘 (1.0 𝑇𝑇 ) ≤ lim 𝑤𝑤𝑘𝑘 XA2, XA3, XD3, XS1

0.2 exposure classes
0.89 lim wk (mm) according to EN 206-1
EN 13084

𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠0.88⋅ 𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠 𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠 − 0.4𝜎𝜎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠

𝑤𝑤𝑘𝑘 = 3.5 ⋅ � 2 � − in
𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠
3
𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 circumferential
direction
T, thermal effects induced by linear 0.3 all other classes
temperature difference between the inner and
outer surface of the chimney wall

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

The paper has presented results from the research [1] Busch D, Harte R, Krätzig WB, Montag U
project RP-2013-No.4c, financed by CICIND, in 2002. New natural draft cooling tower of 200
which simultaneous developments and intersections m of height. Engineering Structures 24, 1509
with respect to the design philosophy of natural – 1521.
draught cooling towers and RC chimneys have been [DOI: 10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00082-2]
investigated [9]. The results shall help to identify
interactions in research, development and [2] CICIND 2011. Model code for concrete
standardization for future joint activities. The chimneys – Part A: The Shell. CICIND
support by CICIND is gratefully acknowledged. Zürich, Switzerland, 3. Edition, July 2011.

[3] Eckstein U, Placzek D, Wörmann R 2012.

The paper has been presented at the International
Structural interaction between cooling towers
Conference on Industrial Chimneys and Cooling
and subsoil based on executed projects. In:
Towers ICCT2014, which has taken place in
Harte R, Meiswinkel R (eds.) 2012. ISCT
Prague/Czech Republic, October 8-11, 2014.
2012 – 6th International Symposium on
Cooling Towers, Cologne, Germany, 2012,
301 – 309.

32
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS
[4] EN 13084-1:2007. Free-standing chimneys -
Part 1: General requirements. CEN Brussels,
May 2007.
[5] EN 13084-2:2007. Free-standing chimneys -
Part 2: Concrete chimneys. CEN Brussels,
May 2007.
[6] Harte R, Krätzig WB, Noh S-Y, Petryna YS
2000. On progressive damage phenomena of
structures. Computational Mechanics 25, 404
– 412.
[DOI: 10.1007/s004660050487]
[7] Harte R, Krätzig WB, Montag U, Petryna
YS 2005. Damage, rehabilitation and residual
life duration of natural draft cooling towers.
Journ. VGB PowerTech 6, 2005, 61 – 66.
[8] Harte R, Reuter H, Wörmann R 2012.
Effects of atmospheric and operational
thermal conditions on the structural integrity
of cooling tower shells. In: Harte R,
Meiswinkel R (eds.) 2012. ISCT 2012 – 6th
International Symposium on Cooling Towers,
Cologne, Germany, 2012, 161 – 170.
[9] Harte R, Pouran O 2014. Interaction and
intersection in research and development of
cooling towers and concrete chimneys.
CICIND Research Project RP-2013-4c,
Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Germany,
2014 (unpublished).
[10] Lupi F, Niemann H-J 2013. International
standardization of wind actions on chimneys.
CICIND Research Project RP-2011-4, Ruhr-
Universität Bochum and Niemann + Partner
Bochum, Germany, 2013 (unpublished).
[11] Noakowski P, Harling A, Breddermann M,
Rost M 2005. Rehabilitation of Chimneys,
In: Pinfold G, Kaemmer K (eds.): CICIND
Chimney Book 2005, CICIND Zürich,
Switzerland, 323 – 344.
View publication stats
[12] Noh S-Y, Krätzig WB, Meskouris K 2003.
Numerical simulation of serviceability,
damage evolution and failure of reinforced
concrete shells. Computers and Structures
81, 2003, 843 – 857.
[DOI: 10.1016/S0045-7949(02)00421-2]
[13] Reuter HCR, Kröger DG 2010, A new two-
dimensional CFD model to predict the
performance of natural draught wet-cooling
towers packed with trickle or splash fills,
Proc. 14th International Heat Transfer
Conference, August 8-13, 2010, Washington
D.C., USA, IHTC14-22789.
[DOI: 10.1115/IHTC14-22789]
[14] Stopp K, Harte R, Titze B 2012.
Investigation of the impact of differential
settlements on cooling tower shells. In: Harte
R, Meiswinkel R (eds.) 2012. ISCT 2012 – 6th
International Symposium on Cooling Towers,
Cologne, Germany, 2012, 329 – 336.
[15] VGB 2010. Structural design of cooling
towers, BTR-guideline VGB-R 610 Ue,
VGB-PowerTech, Essen, Germany, Edition
2010.
[16] Wittek U, Harte R 2007. Nonlinear Design
Strategies to improve Safety, Serviceability
and Lifetime of RC Cooling Towers. Proc.
Structural Engineers World Congress SEWC,
Bangalore, India, 2007.
[17] Wörmann R 2004. Consideration of hygro-
thermal influences on the non-linear load
bearing and damage behaviour of RC shells
(in German), PhD thesis, Bergische
Universität Wuppertal, Institute for Structural
Engineering, Report No. 2, 2004.
33