Chimney Foundation

8.
Industrial chimney foundations

J. G. Turner
8.1. Introduction
Industrial chimneys vary in size and shape from large power station chimneys, which
may be over 200 m in height and more than 20 m in diameter, to steel chimneys only a
few tens of metres high and less than one metre in diameter. Although the term ‘smoke
stack technology’ is sometimes used disparagingly, industrial chimneys are in fact
advanced civil engineering structures involving complex wind load effects, response
spectrum seismic analysis, and the combination of structural and thermal stresses. Many
aspects of the design of industrial chimneys are still being developed — such as wind
loads and dynamic response — and chimney design codes are under constant review.
Chimney foundations are frequently designed and constructed by engineers who have
no specialist knowledge of chimneys. The foundations are designed using the loads and
interface details for the chimney provided by the chimney designer. This chapter
attempts to give some guidance to civil and structural engineers who find themselves
involved with industrial chimney foundations. Details which are specific to the design
and construction of chimney foundations are outlined, and design methods are described.
8.2. Types of chimney

The oldest industrial chimneys remaining in use are mostly of brick construction. Brick-
work has strength in compression but no useful strength in tension. Hence brick
chimneys are essentially gravity structures. Vertical tension stresses due to wind loads
are offset by dead load, and the structure is made as thick as necessary to prevent tension
under wind loads. Consequently, the wall thickness of a brick chimney may be in excess
of one metre at the base. Foundation loads are dominated by the self-weight of the
chimney, and so wind is unlikely to induce uplift under the foundation.
Since the mid-1950s, many industrial chimneys have been built with reinforced
concrete windshields. (The windshield is the outer part of a chimney which supports
both dead load and wind load on the chimney.) Because concrete is not able to withstand
the high temperatures of the flue gases in a chimney, a separate flue is normally used
within the windshield. Of the large number of concrete chimneys constructed in the UK
during the 1960s and 1970s, most were built to an almost standard design, based on a
single brick flue supported from the concrete windshield at intervals up the chimney.
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
186 D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
Concrete is stronger in compression than brickwork, and can be reinforced to carry

tension. Concrete wall thicknesses in 1960s brick-lined chimneys varied from 125 mm at
the top to typically 400 mm at the base (although the minimum wall thickness used today
is 200 mm). Single-flue brick-lined concrete chimneys are thus lighter than brick chim-
neys, and can be designed and constructed to greater heights. With increasing chimney
height there is a corresponding increase in the importance of wind loads, so that the
chimney foundation may need to be designed to resist uplift.
In the 1970s, a number of power station chimneys were constructed with multiple
brick flues. Figure 8.1 shows the main chimney for the Isle of Grain power station in
Kent, England, which has five brick flues, each 6 m in diameter. The chimney was built
in 1975 and is 245 m in height. The arrangement of the flues follows typical UK practice
of the time: reinforced concrete floors are supported from the windshield at 10 m
intervals up the chimney, and the flues are built in 10 m high sections with each section
supported on a floor. The piled chimney foundation is approximately 30 m in diameter.
Since the late 1970s, the use of mild steel for the chimney lining has become more
common. The light weight of a steel flue — from as little as 6 mm thick — allows it to
be supported at a single level in the chimney on a structural steelwork floor. Thus it is
relatively simple to provide support for more than one flue. The multi-flue steel-lined
chimney became popular in the 1980s because each item of plant could feed into its
own flue, enabling minimum flue gas efflux velocities to be maintained when some
items of plant were shut down. Steel-lined chimneys are lighter than brick-lined chim-
neys, and foundation design is influenced even more by wind loads. These lighter
chimneys are also more wind sensitive, so aerodynamic wind effects become more
significant.
Concrete chimneys provide an economical solution from around 80 m in height to the
tallest chimneys in excess of 200 m high. However, the vast majority of industrial chim-
neys are below 80 m in height, and these are normally built of steel. Steel chimneys may
comprise a single steel cylinder which fulfils the duties of both windshield and flue, or
the two components may be separate. Steel chimneys are very light compared to brick or
concrete chimneys. Because of their light weight, they are very wind sensitive. The
problem for the foundation designer is generally not one of providing sufficient bearing
capacity, but rather of ensuring an adequate factor of safety against overturning. Founda-
tion design against uplift is often critical.
A substantial steel multi-flue chimney is shown in Figure 8.2. This chimney was
recently constructed in the Kadanwari Gas Field in Pakistan and is 60 m high. The diam-
eter increases from 2.05 m at the top to 3.65 m at the base, the increase being for
structural reasons. The chimney was shipped from the UK in seven sections with flanged
connections, and was erected on site on a prepared foundation approximately 15 m in
diameter.
8.3. Chimney loads

In the UK, concrete chimneys are normally designed to the American Concrete Institute
Standard ACI 307 [8.1]. This standard includes a section on loads. There is no equivalent
IN DU STR IA L C HI MNE Y F OU ND A TIO NS 187
Figure 8.1. Concrete chimney for Isle of Grain power station, Kent, England (photo
courtesy of Bierrum Group)
British Standard for concrete chimneys at present. British Standard BS 4076 [8.2] is used
for steel chimney design; the standard includes wind loads based on CP3 [8.3], but with
modifications specifically for steel chimney design. Other European countries do have
chimney design standards, and in due course Eurocodes will also cover chimney design.
The CICIND organisation produces model codes for the design of both concrete and
Figure 8.2. Steel chimney in Kadanwari Gas Field, Pakistan (photo courtesy
of Beaumont Chimneys)
steel chimneys [8.4], [8.5]; these model codes incorporate detailed loading sections.
Chimney design codes do not normally cover chimney foundations in detail; it is
assumed that the standards of the appropriate country will apply to the design of the
foundation. In the UK, chimney foundations are normally designed in accordance with
BS 8004 [8.6] and BS 8110 [8.7].
The main types of loading acting on a chimney foundation are dead load, wind load
and, where appropriate, seismic load. Roof and floor areas within most chimneys are
small, and so imposed loads are generally very small compared to dead loads. Load
combinations involving imposed loads are not normally critical for the design of the
chimney windshield.
Dead loads comprise the weight of the chimney windshield, the flues, roof, floors and
the foundation. In cases of lighter chimney construction where foundation uplift and
overturning are critical, it may be permissible to counter the lack of dead load by taking
into account the weight of any fill on top of the foundation. If the weight of the fill is to
be used in the foundation design, the design engineer must consider whether the fill is to
be permanent during the life of the chimney.
Wind is the most important load on most chimneys. Industrial chimneys are
wind-sensitive structures; thus the wind loads are to some extent dependent on the
response of the structure to the wind. Both the chimney windshield and the foundation
have to be designed to take account of the effects of transient wind loads. Wind loading
in chimney design codes is usually based on a gust factor method in which the total load
comprises a steady wind load plus a fluctuating component, the latter being dependent
on the dynamic response of the chimney.
In addition to the wind loads in the along-wind direction, chimneys are subject to
loading in the direction transverse to the wind. These across-wind loads are due to the
shedding of wind vortices from the chimney; vortices are shed alternately from each side
of the chimney, causing transverse aerodynamic loads and consequent transverse oscilla-
tions. A detailed explanation of the effect is given in reference [8.8]. Across-wind
oscillation of concrete chimneys can lead to greater bending moments on the foundation
than along-wind effects. The values of wind load both in the along-wind direction and
the across-wind direction are calculated in accordance with the chimney design standard;
therefore the foundation loads are calculated by the chimney design engineer.
In chimney design codes, a lower load factor is usually applied to across-wind loads
than to along-wind loads. ACI 307 specifies a load factor of 1.3 for along-wind loads,
but a reduced factor of 1.2 is specified for across-wind loads. When designing chimney
foundations to UK standards, some engineers assign a load factor of 1.6 to wind loads (as
for imposed loads) rather than the normal wind load factor of 1.4. Where an enhanced
wind load factor of 1.6 is used for along-wind loads in designs to British Standards, it
may be worth considering the use of the normal wind load factor of 1.4 for across-wind
loads, provided that soil conditions are such that repeated loading is not likely to cause a
reduction in soil strength.
Across-wind loads on steel chimneys could lead to excessive and repetitive stresses in
the windshield, with the consequent possibility of fatigue problems. These potential
problems are normally prevented by the fitting of anti-oscillation devices such as helical
strakes to the top third of the chimney, or pendulum-type dampers near the top of the
chimney. (Helical strakes are fitted to the chimney shown in Figure 8.2.) These measures
aim to remove the tendency of the chimney to be affected by vortex shedding; for this
reason, across-wind loads are not always calculated by steel chimney design codes and
do not need to be used in the chimney foundation design.
Seismic loads on chimneys are normally calculated by a response spectrum method.
Pseudo-static methods are no longer recommended for chimneys because the dynamic
response of the structure is not adequately considered by these methods. In many cases,
only horizontal seismic loading is taken into account for the design of the chimney wind-
shield; vertical seismic loads add little to the overall design forces in the chimney itself.
However, for foundation design, where the considerable dead loads of the foundation
and fill are added to the overall structure, the effects of vertical seismic loads should be
checked. Vertical seismic load will affect the bearing pressures on the ground as well as
the design of the reinforced concrete foundation.
Other loads which are taken into account in the design of chimneys are second-order
effects, including insolation, and temperature effects. Second-order effects are stresses
caused by displacement of the chimney’s self-weight under the action of other loads such
as wind. Insolation is the heating of the structure by the sun, which raises the temperature
of one side of the chimney windshield, causing it to expand relative to the shaded side;
this differential expansion causes deflection of the chimney away from the sun and adds
to the loading. Second-order effects are calculated in accordance with chimney design
codes and, if significant, are included in the design of the chimney and will be included
in the foundation loads provided by the chimney design engineer. Temperature effects in
a chimney are due to temperature differentials between the hot flue gases and the
ambient air. The only significant temperature effect which needs to be accommodated in
foundation design occurs when the base of a flue is supported directly on the chimney
foundation. In this case, the top of the foundation may be heated by the flue: the resulting
concrete temperature and differential temperature stresses should be considered in the
design of the foundation.
Where lack of dead load is a problem in the design of a chimney foundation, it may be
possible to include the weight of any fill on top of the base. Sometimes the top of the
foundation is at a level one metre or more below ground level in order to allow services
to be routed across the area of the base. Alternatively, the base may be constructed below
ground level to take advantage of improved ground bearing capacity at lower levels. In
some cases, chimney foundations are built several metres below ground to allow the
flues serving the chimney to be sited underground. In all of these cases, the important
consideration is the permanence of the fill. Only fill that will remain in place for the full
life of the chimney can be considered to assist the design. When advantage is taken of
the presence of fill on top of the foundation, the chimney and its foundation should none-
theless be capable of resisting wind loading with a reduced return period when the fill is
absent. This will cover the construction condition and allow for any temporary excava-
tion in the chimney area, but obviously not any permanent reduction in ground level. The
chimney owner should be made aware of any restrictions on future changes of ground
level around the chimney.
8.4. Effects of other structures

Foundations for all but the smallest chimneys are invariably independent of other struc-
tures, largely because of settlement considerations. Uniform vertical settlement of a
chimney foundation will generally present no problems for the chimney structure, but
provision has to be made in the design of the connection between the incoming duct and
the chimney flue for differential vertical movement. An expansion joint is normally
provided at the interface between duct and chimney.
It is most important to avoid tilt of the chimney foundation due to differential settle-
ment. Chimneys are tall structures and the height of the chimney is several times the
diameter of the foundation. Thus any vertical differential settlement between one side of
the foundation and the other will be magnified several fold, and will result in a horizontal
displacement of the top of the chimney. Excessive horizontal deflection will induce
second-order bending moments in the chimney windshield, and will also cause addi-
tional relative movements at interfaces such as that between the incoming duct and the
chimney flue.
When siting a chimney foundation, consideration should therefore be given to the
effect of foundation loads from adjacent structures on the ground beneath the chimney.
Heavy structures will induce settlement of the ground for some distance beyond their
own foundation area; the effect of any proposed construction near to a chimney founda-
tion should be investigated. Storage structures, such as silos and bunkers, may have large
cyclical variations in imposed loads, causing repeated changes in ground settlement in
the surrounding area. Such ground movements may be unacceptable to the chimney
foundation design and may necessitate the use of a deeper, piled chimney foundation or,
alternatively, relocation of the proposed chimney.
8.5. Soil properties

Despite their considerable height, most chimneys are not particularly demanding in
terms of allowable bearing pressure. Conventional circular or annular pad or raft founda-
tions are common even for the largest power station chimneys. Allowable bearing
pressures of 300 kPa will normally suffice for the heaviest brick-lined chimney, while a
small steel chimney may require less than 100 kPa. Bearing capacity and settlement
calculations should take into account the fluctuating nature of the wind loads, particu-
larly if the soil is a clay type which is susceptible to softening, or a loose granular soil
which may be compacted by repetitive loading.
In the design of most smaller chimney foundations, it is normal to use the allow-
able bearing pressure of the ground as a limit for all load cases; no overstress is
allowed for wind. For the largest chimney foundations or those subject to seismic
loads, Table 8.1 gives a more detailed relationship between loading and allowable net
bearing pressure. Similarly for piled foundations, the allowable pile loads in
compression and tension can be used for most foundations, again with no increase for
wind. Table 8.2 gives a more detailed relationship between loading and allowable
pile loads for the largest chimneys. Tables 8.1 and 8.2 are taken from an unpublished
draft British Standard on chimney design. In areas of high seismicity, seismic loads
may be critical for foundation design. In such cases, local Codes of Practice will
Table 8.1. Allowable bearing pressures for chimney foundations
Serviceability limit state load combinations Maximum bearing pressure
1. Dead load of complete chimney, lining, foundation, 0.8 × allowable net bearing pressure
backfilling (if any) and imposed load. on the ground
2. As 1. Plus wind loading. 0.35 × ultimate bearing capacity of
the ground
3. Wind loading and minimum dead load of completed 0.35 × ultimate bearing capacity of
windshield and foundation, allowing for buoyancy if the ground the ground
can become waterlogged, excluding lining and backfilling.
Ultimate limit state load combinations Maximum bearing pressure
4. Wind loading and dead load of completed chimney, lining, 0.55 × ultimate bearing capacity of
foundation, backfilling (if any) and imposed load. the ground
5. Wind loading and minimum dead load of completed 0.55 × ultimate bearing capacity of
windshield and foundation, allowing for buoyancy if the ground the ground
can become waterlogged, excluding lining and backfilling.
Notes:
1. The maximum bearing pressure is the bearing pressure under that part of the foundation where the
total effect of all loads in the load combination is a maximum.
2. Net allowable bearing pressure is the allowable bearing pressure net of excavated material.
Table 8.2. Allowable loads on piles for chimney foundations
Maximum compression Maximum tension pile

Serviceability limit state load combinations pile load load
1. Dead load of complete chimney, lining, 0.8 × allowable pile load

foundation, backfilling (if any) and imposed load.
2. As 1. Plus wind loading. Allowable pile load 0.33 × tensile
resistance of pile
3. Wind loading and minimum dead load of Allowable pile load 0.33 × tensile
completed windshield and foundation, allowing resistance of pile
for buoyancy if the ground can become
waterlogged, excluding lining and backfilling.
Ultimate limit state load combinations Maximum compression Maximum tension pile
pile load load
4. Wind loading and dead load of completed 0.55 × ultimate bearing 0.55 × tensile
chimney, lining, foundation, backfilling (if any) capacity of the pile in the resistance of pile
and imposed load. ground
5. Wind loading and minimum dead load of 0.55 × ultimate bearing 0.55 × tensile
completed windshield and foundation, allowing capacity of the pile in the resistance of pile
for buoyancy if the ground can become ground
waterlogged, excluding lining and backfilling.
Note:
The maximum pile load is the load on that pile on which the total effect of all loads in the load
combination is a maximum.
normally dictate the load factors or adjustments to allowable bearing pressures which
should be used.
The interface between structure and soil in many chimney foundations is governed
not by allowable bearing pressure but by uplift considerations. Whether or not uplift
can be allowed under characteristic loads will depend on the type of soil. If the founda-
tion is on rock or sand, some uplift can be allowed under the serviceability design wind
load. For substrates which could be weakened by water ingress between the foundation
and the soil, or if the base of the foundation is below the water table, no uplift should be
allowed.
The rocking stiffness of the foundation has an influence on both the wind loads and
seismic loads on the chimney. The stiffness affects the natural frequency of the
chimney, and hence the value of the gust factor and across-wind response; it also influ-
ences the chimney deflection and hence second-order load effects. A detailed soil
investigation is essential for all but the smallest chimney foundations. Settlement char-
acteristics and subgrade compressibility should be determined as well as allowable
bearing pressure. Several boreholes may be required to check that soil conditions are
uniform over the area of a large foundation, and that uniform settlement of the founda-
tion can be expected.
Additional loads may be conveniently applied to chimney foundations when adjacent
duct supports or other plant are located within the area of the chimney foundation. The
size of a chimney foundation and the congested nature of the area around the chimney
often make such additional loading unavoidable. The chimney foundation should be
designed to accommodate the combined loading of the chimney and other plant. Uneven
bearing pressures beneath the chimney foundation can cause differential settlement; in
order to keep differential settlement across the foundation to a minimum, the bearing
pressure should not vary by more than 15% under the combined effects of all dead loads.
8.6. Foundation types

8.6.1. Pad and raft foundations
Chimney pad or raft foundations are normally circular in shape and of uniform thickness,
though some economy may be possible in the case of very large foundations by reducing
the thickness towards the edge. The diameter of a foundation for a concrete chimney is
typically 50% greater than the diameter of the chimney windshield at ground level. No
similar generality can be expressed for steel chimneys because of the large range of
height-to-diameter ratios that is possible. Older chimney foundations were often built to
an octagonal shape, but with the availability of modern steel shutters the octagon is no
longer commonly specified.
Many large chimneys, such as multi-flue power station chimneys, do not require the
footprint of a full circular base to carry the loads to the ground. Annular ring founda-
tions provide a more economic solution in such cases. In locations where high ground
strengths are available, or when high capacity piles are used, the width of the founda-
tion can be as little as two or three metres, giving substantial savings over a full circular
base.
Figure 8.3. Complex chimney foundations for weak soils
Figure 8.4. Cross-section of typical piled chimney foundation
Occasionally, it is necessary to design a foundation for a large chimney in a location

where ground conditions require a raft with low net bearing pressure. In such circum-
stances a more complicated type of foundation has to be used, possibly including ribbed
or cellular construction. Typical examples are illustrated in Figure 8.3.
8.6.2. Piled foundations

Where ground conditions are not suitable for pad or raft foundations, piled foundations
are used. Skin-friction piles are more suited to chimney foundations than end-bearing
piles, since greater uplift capacity is generally available. This is particularly true for
lighter chimneys such as steel-lined concrete windshields or steel chimneys. Piles often
require reinforcement to full depth in order to carry the upward loads; in the case of steel
chimneys, the pile capacity in tension will frequently govern the design of the pile.
In the past, raking piles were sometimes incorporated in the design of the pile group to
provide lateral load capacity. The normal practice was to rake the outer ring of piles
outwards from the centre of the foundation. More modern practice is to use vertical piles
for economy and to carry the horizontal wind loads in shear in all the piles; see
Figure 8.4. Careful structural design of the piles is necessary, and in particular the depth
of fixity of the piles needs to be assessed from geotechnical information.
If seismic loading is a design condition, the lateral loads may be too great to be accom-
modated within the pile group. In this case, it may be necessary to consider passive
resistance of the ground against the foundation as well as lateral pile capacity in resisting
the horizontal seismic loads.
8.6.3. Foundations on plant or structural steelwork

Foundations for steel chimneys may be above ground level. Often steel chimneys are
founded on top of the plant which they serve. This expedient avoids the cost of ductwork
and also the cost of the lower part of a floor-standing chimney. Steel chimneys may also
be founded on a structural steel framework. This solution is chosen when space is not
available at ground level for the chimney foundation. The loading on a foundation due to
wind can be marginally more severe when the chimney is supported on a steel structure
because damping from the foundation is lower than in the case of a conventional founda-
tion below ground.
Steel chimneys are normally circular in form. When a steel chimney is supported on
structural steelwork, careful design of the transition from the circular chimney to the
rectangular steel frame is necessary. The structural steelwork normally provides a
rectangular framework of beams. Diagonal trimmer beams are necessary to provide
additional support to the chimney, which will then be located at a series of points around
the circumference of the chimney base. The chimney base stool must be designed to take
account of the intermittent circumferential support provided by the steelwork.
8.7. Analysis of foundation

Soil–structure interaction affects the distribution of pressures between the underside of
the foundation and the supporting soil. The pressure distribution will depend on the rela-
tive stiffness of the foundation and the subgrade. In most cases it may be assumed that
the underside of the foundation remains plane and that the foundation pressure varies
linearly. For very large foundations or where weak ground is present, a more accurate
assessment of foundation pressures may be obtained from an analysis of the structure
and supporting soil using finite element or other techniques.
For a piled foundation, provided that all piles are of approximately equal length, it
may be assumed that the underside of the foundation remains plane. Pile loads will
then vary linearly over the area of the foundation. The tensile resistance of piles can
sometimes be taken into account in the design of the pile group. Allowable tensile
load in the piles should be determined in accordance with the appropriate Code of
Practice. Account should be taken of the modification of pile behaviour due to the
piles being part of a group, particularly for behaviour under tensile loads. Considera-
tion should be given to carrying out pile tests to establish the tension capacity of one
or more piles.
In most cases, radial and tangential bending moments and shear forces in solid slabs
and pile caps may be calculated with sufficient accuracy in accordance with the theory of
elasticity for thin plates. Critical bending moments and shear forces in circular or annular
chimney foundations generally lie in the radial direction. Simple examples for circular
foundations are given later in this chapter; a more rigorous presentation of plate formulae
for annular foundations is given by Chu and Afandi [8.9].
The factor of safety of the foundation against overturning under dead plus wind or
seismic loads should not be less than 1.5. In making this calculation for piled founda-
tions, it is common to ignore the uplift capacity of the piles, and to consider only the
self-weight of the piles as resisting upward forces.
For the largest chimney foundations, or in weak ground where it is not possible to
assume that the base remains plane, finite element methods may be used to determine the
soil–structure interaction and hence the bending moments and shear forces in the founda-
tion. At least the lower section of the windshield should be represented in the finite
element analysis, including any significant openings in the windshield. Dead and wind
loads can then be applied to the foundation by the windshield. The theory of Wood and
Armer [8.10] can be used to identify critical bending moments and shear forces for rein-
forcement design.
Many chimney windshields have substantial openings at, or near, ground level. These
openings may serve for flue duct entry into the chimney or may be needed to allow
ready-made sections of steel flues to be transported into the chimney during construction.
In the analysis of the chimney foundation, allowance has to be made for the redistribution
of the vertical forces in the windshield from the opening to the section of windshield
either side of the opening; chimney design codes give rules for such redistribution. If an
opening is close to the base of the windshield, the required height of windshield wall for
the design of the lintel below the opening may not be available. In this case, the section of
the foundation below the opening has to be designed to serve as a lintel below the wind-
shield opening. This may require a local increase in the thickness of the foundation. If the
chimney base is piled, it may be possible to place additional piles in the area of increased
load in order to maintain a constant thickness of the foundation.
8.8. Design of foundation

Critical sections for bending and shear are normally at the outside face of the chimney
windshield. In the case of a large-diameter windshield, shear at the inside face of the
windshield and bending at the centre of the foundation may also be critical. Bending
moments at the face of the windshield are calculated on the diameter which lies in the
direction of the maximum bending moment from the chimney. In the case of along-wind
loading, the downwind side gives the maximum sagging moment, which controls the
bottom-face reinforcement; the upwind side gives the maximum hogging moment,
which controls the top-face reinforcement.
As with other circular structures, the design engineer has the choice between rein-
forcement placed in two orthogonal directions or aligned in the radial and
circumferential directions. Each case has to be assessed individually, but a number of
factors usually conspire to make the choice fairly straightforward. Most small and
medium sized foundations are of constant thickness and the reinforcement is uniform,
with perhaps some curtailment near the edge of the base. In such cases, orthogonal rein-
forcement is more economical. Significant additional weight of reinforcement results
from the uneven spacing of radial bars in the alternative radial and circumferential rein-
forcement layout.
Many of the largest chimney foundations, and many piled chimney foundations, are in
the form of an annular ring. In this case, radial and circumferential reinforcement is the
better arrangement. The structural shape obviously lends itself to this layout, and the
radial reinforcing bars can be of larger diameter than the circumferential reinforcement
since they carry the maximum principal bending moments.
Where a finite element analysis of the chimney foundation has been made, both alter-
native reinforcement layouts can be easily considered. Many finite element systems
allow the use of local co-ordinate systems; the use of a cylindrical co-ordinate system
combined with Wood and Armer bending moments allows output of data for radial and
circumferential reinforcement, whereas a Cartesian co-ordinate system provides data for
an orthogonal reinforcement arrangement.
Codes of practice for reinforced concrete design normally specify the shear capacity of
a reinforced concrete slab as a function of the flexural reinforcement. The design engi-
neer then has the option of increasing the flexural reinforcement where necessary to give
the required shear capacity. This approach is frequently uneconomic in the case of thick
slabs such as chimney foundations; normally the more efficient approach is to provide
shear reinforcement in the form of links.
Many chimney foundations require designed structural reinforcement in the bottom
face only. Top-face reinforcement for structural purposes may be zero or very small,
depending on the amount of uplift beneath the foundation under the ultimate limit state
load combination. Codes of practice normally stipulate a minimum percentage of rein-
forcement in slabs or foundations, although this can result in large volumes of
reinforcement in a thick foundation slab. In such cases an alternative design approach for
top-face reinforcement may be considered, in which reinforcement design is based on
the control of cracking. Guidance for this approach may be obtained in codes of practice
for water-retaining concrete structures, such as BS 8007 [8.11], where nominal rein-
forcement for the control of early thermal shrinkage cracking is based on a notional
surface zone of concrete, and not on the full depth of the slab. This approach can provide
useful savings in the cost of chimney foundation reinforcement. In small chimney foun-
dations, the top-face reinforcement can often be a welded structural mesh.
Foundations for concrete chimneys require starter bars for the reinforced concrete
windshield. These bars are necessary to resist vertical tension at the base of the wind-
shield; compression steel is rarely used in reinforced concrete chimney windshields.
Starter reinforcement should therefore be anchored close to the bottom face of the
foundation. Foundations for steel chimneys incorporate holding-down bolts for the
chimney. Again, the bolts serve to carry tension due to uplift from the chimney wind-
shield under wind loads. Holding-down bolts should also be anchored near the bottom
face of the foundation. Normal practice is to provide a large plate washer to give suffi-
cient bearing area to carry the load from the bolt into the concrete. If the holding-down
bolts do not extend to the bottom face of the foundation, reinforcement should be
provided to carry the tension load down to the bottom face. Additionally, the
anchorage of the holding-down bolts should be checked to ensure that pull-out failure
cannot occur.
8.9. Design examples

Example No. 1: Pad or raft foundation for 130 m high concrete chimney.
Loads on the foundation from the chimney windshield (Figure 8.5):
Vertical dead load = 26 000 kN
Horizontal wind load = 1500 kN
13·0 m diameter
0·75 m
1·9 m
4·5 m
22·0 m diameter
(a)
20 kPa
236 kPa
(b)
28 kPa
268 kPa
330 kPa
(c)
Figure 8.5. Design example of circular raft chimney foundation: (a) cross-section
dimensions; (b) bearing pressures at serviceability limit state; (c) bearing pressures at
ultimate limit state
Wind overturning moment = 110 000 kNm

The total vertical load on the underside of the foundation comprises the load from the
windshield plus the weight of the foundation and soil above.
Total vertical load = 26 000 + (π/4) × 22.02 × 1.9 × 24 + (π/4) × 22.02 × 0.75 × 19
= 48 750 kN
Total overturning moment on underside of foundation
= 110 000 + 1500 × 1.9
= 112 850 kNm
Area of foundation = (π/4) × 22.02
= 380 m2
Section modulus of foundation = (π/32) × 22.03
= 1045 m3
Pressure distribution under foundation = (48 750/380) ± (112 850/1045)
= 128 ± 108 kPa
= 236 or 20 kPa
as illustrated in Figure 8.5.
For the design of the bottom-face reinforcement, the maximum downward load plus
maximum overturning moment will give the critical load case. Assume BS 8110 load
factors of 1.4 for both dead and wind loads. Then the serviceability limit state bearing
pressure distribution will be increased by the factor 1.4 for the ultimate load condition.
Bearing pressure at face of chimney windshield at ultimate limit state
= 330 – (4.5/22.0) × (330 – 28)
= 268 kPa
Ultimate limit state bending moment at face of windshield
= 268 × 4.5 × ½ × 4.5 + (330 – 268) × ½ × 4.5 × b × 4.5
– 1.4 × (1.9 × 24 + 0.75 × 19) × 4.5 × ½ × 4.5
= 2290 kNm/m
Peak shear force at face of windshield
= 268 × 4.5 + (330 – 268) × ½ × 4.5
– 1.4 × (1.9 × 24 + 0.75 × 19) × 4.5
= 970 kN/m
However, BS 8110 allows the critical section to be drawn across the full width of the
foundation at the face of the supported structure; in which case the average maximum
shear force reduces to 660 kN/m. Alternatively, the peak value of shear force can be used
with an enhanced concrete shear capacity.
Example No. 2: Piled foundation for 50 m high steel chimney.

Loads on the foundation from the chimney windshield (Figure 8.6):
Vertical dead load = 550 kN
Horizontal wind load = 125 kN
Wind overturning moment = 3700 kNm
2·7 m diameter
0·75 m
6·0 m diameter
Figure 8.6. Cross-section dimensions used in design example of circular piled chimney
foundation
The total vertical load on the underside of the foundation comprises the load from the
windshield plus the weight of the foundation.
Total vertical load = 550 + (π/4) × 6.02 × 0.75 × 24
= 1059 kN
Total overturning moment on underside of foundation
= 3700 + 125 × 0.75
= 3794 kNm
Total number of piles = 32 in one ring
Pitch-circle diameter of piles = 5.4 m
Modulus of pile group = 32 × 5.4/4
= 43.2 m
Pile load distribution = (1059/32) ± (3794/43.2)
= 33 ± 88 kN
= 121 or –55 kN
assuming that all the structural loading is carried by the piles.
8.10. Re-use of existing foundations

Occasionally it may be possible to make use of an existing foundation for a new
chimney. This course of action will appeal to chimney owners, who may consider that
savings will accrue, but in practice there are likely to be substantial engineering difficul-
ties. In fact the main reason for constructing a new foundation often has nothing to do
with the suitability of the old one, but is dictated by the overriding consideration of
keeping the plant in use with as little disruption as possible during the change from the
original chimney to the new one. If the new chimney has to be constructed and ready for
service before the old chimney can be decommissioned, clearly a new foundation will be
needed.
Nowadays a number of old concrete or brick stacks are being replaced by new steel
chimneys. Assuming that the replacement chimney is of a similar height to the
previous structure, a number of points need to be considered before the existing foun-
dation can be re-used. Often existing structures, including foundations, do not comply
with current standards. Provided that such structures have generally performed satis-
factorily in the past, and have no history of structural problems, there is no reason to
condemn a structure just because codes of practice have changed. However, when
significant changes are planned, it is usual to assess a structure against current stand-
ards. Hence if an existing chimney foundation is to be used for a new and different
chimney, any new analysis and design should be carried out in accordance with current
standards.
Where a new steel chimney is to replace an old concrete or brick stack, the main
problem for the design engineer will be the reduction in dead load on the foundation.
Overturning is likely to be the critical design consideration for pad or raft foundations,
and uplift on the piles will be critical for piled bases. These considerations may lead to a
requirement to increase the dead load on the foundation itself.
A further practical problem occurs in anchoring the new chimney to the foundation.
The installation of new holding-down bolts into the existing foundation requires the
drilling of accurately spaced holes to a considerable depth into the concrete foundation.
This is a difficult and costly procedure. The greater problem of installing new starter bars
all but precludes the construction of a new concrete windshield on an existing
foundation. For the reasons given above, it is most common to find new chimneys built
on new foundations.
The one case when an existing foundation will generally be re-used is the replacement
of a steel chimney which has reached the end of its service life, by a new and similar
structure. Provided that the holding-down bolts remain in good condition, all that is
required is to ensure that the base plate for the new chimney is match-drilled to the
holding-down bolt layout.
In most modern chimneys, the flue or flues enter the chimney at some distance
above the base. Thus the foundation is not exposed to heat from flue gases. In old
single-flue brick-lined chimneys, the flue frequently extends to the base of the
chimney, even though the bottom few metres may be dead space below the flue entry
level. In this case, the top of the foundation must be protected from the heat and chem-
ical content of the flue gases, usually by providing a brick hearth on the top of the
chimney base. The hearth is built of refractory or acid-resisting brickwork, and
includes either a thermal insulating layer or a means of cooling the foundation by
ventilation. On the cold side of the thermal insulation, an acid-resistant membrane is
incorporated to prevent acid condensate from the flue gases coming into contact with
the concrete of the foundation.
8.11. Construction and costs

A foundation for a large power station chimney is likely to involve a large concrete pour,
requiring special attention to control concrete temperatures. The use of ground granu-
lated blast-furnace slag or pulverised fuel ash is recommended as a cement replacement
in such foundations.
An important part of the chimney foundation is the interface with the chimney wind-
shield. Tolerances for the location of starter-bar reinforcement for a concrete windshield,
or holding-down bolts for a steel chimney, need to be strictly observed. In the case of a
steel chimney, it is normal for the chimney contractor to provide a steel template for the
holding-down bolts in the form of an annular plate which is match-drilled to the base
flange of the chimney. This template is used to constrain the upper ends of the
holding-down bolts during construction of the base. Positioning of starter bars for a rein-
forced concrete windshield is also critical, and some positive location is necessary if the
required cover to the reinforcement in the concrete windshield is to be achieved. With
proprietary chimney construction systems, especially slipform methods, it is extremely
difficult to vary the windshield dimensions at ground level to accommodate starter bars
which are out of place.
It is important that the top of the foundation is finished to a uniform level for the
construction of the chimney windshield. When slipform construction is to be used for a
Figure 8.7. Pouring of concrete in foundation for large multi-flue chimney, South Africa
(photo courtesy of NCL Stewart Scott)
concrete windshield, it is normal to align the top of the foundation beneath the base of
the wall with the general level of the foundation top surface, so that the slipform shutter
is initially set up on a flat foundation surface.
Figure 8.7 shows concrete being poured in the foundation of a 200 m high multi-flue
concrete chimney in South Africa. The chimney was built in 1989, and has a raft founda-
tion which is 22 m in diameter and 3 m thick, and which bears on rock. The arrangement
of reinforcement is orthogonal, and additional clearance was allowed by the contractor
between the reinforcement and the sides of the excavation in lieu of shutters for the
concrete.
The cost of a chimney foundation may be a substantial proportion of the cost of the
whole structure. In the case of a large power station chimney, a circular pad or raft foun-
dation may represent up to 20% of the total cost of the chimney; this can be reduced to as
little as 10% if a more economical annular foundation is feasible. A deeper foundation or
a piled solution may prove economical if it allows a change from a circular to an annular
foundation.
8.12. References
8.1. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE. Standard practice for the design and construction of reinforced
concrete chimneys and Commentary. ACI, Detroit, Michigan, USA, 1998, ACI 307-98 and ACI
307R-98.
8.2. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Specification for steel chimneys. BSI, London, 1989, BS 4076.
8.3. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Basic data for the design of buildings: Chapter V; Loading.
BSI, London, 1972, CP 3, Chapter V, Part 2.
8.4. COMITÉ INTERNATIONAL DES CHEMINÉES INDUSTRIELLES. Model code for concrete chimneys: the
shell. CICIND, Zurich, Switzerland, Aug. 1998, Part A.
8.5. COMITÉ INTERNATIONAL DES CHEMINÉES INDUSTRIELLES. Model code for steel chimneys. CICIND,
Zurich, Switzerland, May 1988.
8.6. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. British Standard Code of Practice for foundations. BSI,
London, 1986, BS 8004.
8.7. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Structural use of concrete. BSI, London, 1997, BS 8110, Part 1.
8.8. ENGINEERING SCIENCES DATA UNIT. Across-flow response due to vortex shedding: Isolated
circular cylindrical structures in wind or gas flows. ESDU, London, 1978, Item 78006.
8.9. CHU, K.-H. and AFANDI, O. F. Analysis of circular and annular slabs for chimney foundations. J.
Am. Conc. Inst., 1966, 63, 12 (Dec.), 1425–1446.
8.10. WOOD, R. H. The reinforcement of slabs in accordance with a pre-determined field of moments.
Concrete, 1968, 2, 2 (Feb.), 69–76.
8.11. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Design of concrete structures for retaining aqueous liquids.
BSI, London, 1987, BS 8007.

Chimney Foundation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chimney Foundation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chimney Foundation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8.

Industrial chimney foundations

8.2. Types of chimney

Concrete is stronger in compression than brickwork, and can be reinforced to carry

8.3. Chimney loads

8.4. Effects of other structures

8.5. Soil properties

Table 8.1. Allowable bearing pressures for chimney foundations

Serviceability limit state load combinations Maximum bearing pressure

Ultimate limit state load combinations Maximum bearing pressure

Table 8.2. Allowable loads on piles for chimney foundations

Maximum compression Maximum tension pile

1. Dead load of complete chimney, lining, 0.8 × allowable pile load

8.6. Foundation types

Figure 8.3. Complex chimney foundations for weak soils

Figure 8.4. Cross-section of typical piled chimney foundation

Occasionally, it is necessary to design a foundation for a large chimney in a location

8.6.2. Piled foundations

8.6.3. Foundations on plant or structural steelwork

8.7. Analysis of foundation

8.8. Design of foundation

8.9. Design examples

Wind overturning moment = 110 000 kNm

Example No. 2: Piled foundation for 50 m high steel chimney.

8.10. Re-use of existing foundations

8.11. Construction and costs

You might also like