PRITCHARD

used liners made upof short sections, each tele-

scoping into the section above and supported
by the concrete shell (Fig. 1).In Germany, an
accessible airspace was required between the
liner and shell, but elsewhere,no airspaces or
airspaces as little as100 mm wide were
common. By the early 1960s, multi-flue chim-
neys were introduced to reduce the rangeof Shell,
operating conditions and reduce theeffect of Lining,
liner failure on the total plant. These chimneys
had a number of sectional liners, each dedicated
to a separate boiler or furnace (Fig.2).
Designers in theUSA generally used full height
single liners, supported by the foundation alone
(Fig. 3).
5. By the late 1960s, steel liners started to
replace brickwork (whose rather variable
properties do not lend themselves to rational
design). Initially, these liners were top hung, to
1
P
reduce the risk of buckling the thin sections Fluegasopening
involved. After a numberof expensive structur-
al failures, however, the American Society of F
Civil Engineers set up a task force to develop
better design principles for steel liners2 Since
these principles were adopted, there havebeen Fig. 1. Concrete
few structural failures of steel liners, mostof Narrow airspace chimneys with
Accessible airspace
which are now bottom-supported (Fig.4). liner Supported bycorbels sectional single liners
6. In the 1980s, governments began to
respond to environmental concerns and intro-
duced legislation requiring the removal (rather
than the dispersal)of pollutants from the flue
+257.200
gases. The major pollutants (sulphur oxides) 21 520 dia. +249.500 Roof
were usually removed by scrubbing the flue
gases with alkaline solutions (Flue Gas Guide floor
Desulphurization-FGD). This, however, intro-
duced major problems of corrosion which are
discussed later in this paper. m
7. One effect of the new legislation was that
the heights of chimneys wereno longer neces-
+196.128
- 5
Monitor
'
.-

8
Guide floor
sarily dictated by pollution dispersion require- B
ments. In consequence, very tall chimneys were $1
-
no longer required and steel chimneys started
to become the economic choice (especiallya s 1
5
5 +148.560
tall cranes andeconomic solutions to cross- +149'760 Four 6600i.d.flues
N Monitor
wind oscillation allowed steel chimneys to (D
(D

compete with concrete up to heightsof 100 m or +141.936

so). One exception was in the Eastern Block,
where dispersion continued tobe favoured over
pollutant removal. As a result, chimney heights
continued to climb in theUSSR, where chim- +95.568 +96.768
neys up to 420 m tall were being b u i k 3 0
0 Monitor Section through chimney
U,
8. In the 199Os, air pollution requirements I
0 0 10 20
have become ever more stringent, and flue
l
0 l 1 I

gases from new power stations in Germany are

2 Scale of m
now considered innocuous enough to be rel-
eased to the atmosphereby way of the water
cooling towers, rather than by wayof chim-
1-
+50.400

ney~.~ 0

9. Nowadays, fewer and fewer new chim- 91

neys are being constructed and more attention +7200
is being paid to extending the lives of those

-
37000 dia. 0
U,
+2.200
already in place. The most expensivecom-
ponent of anunplannedchimneyrepairis Fig. 2. Concrete chimney with multi-flue sectional Yrickwork liners
70
 INDUSTRIAL
CHIMNEYS

usually the costof lost production from the unit

served. Therefore, it pays to carry out regular
beyond normal
inspections, so that unplanned shut-downs for
repair can be avoided. Inspections are often
visual, involving access by a steeplejack to the
external and internal surfacesof the chimney.
This is quite expensive and internal accessis
not always available. The following alternative
inspection methods have thereforebeen
developedS
(a) on-line internal inspectionby remotely con-
trolled ' hot' camera6
( b ) vibration techniques to identify cracks,
etc., in the concreteshell'
( c ) high definition video cameras, to record
and monitor cracks, spalls, honeycombing, Shell '
etc., on external surface.8
10. Looking to the future, it is probable that
air pollution requirementswill reduce further
the pollutants released by chimneys. If we con-
tinue to rely mainlyon fossil fuels, however, it
is difficult to seehow the demand to reduce the
release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can
be satisfied. As a resultof environmental pres-
sure, there isno doubt that chimneys are not
popular with the public. In Japan, for instance,
the environmental lobby hasbeen so effective
that some recent chimneys have been disguised
to look like apartment blocks (Fig.5). Others
have been decorated to make them more accept-
able (Fig. 6).

Hazards faced by chimneys

11. In addition to the normal hazards faced
by tall structures, such as foundation settle-
ment and the effectsof high winds and earth-
quakes, chimneys are subject additionallyto
chemical effects and dynamic and thermal
loads, anyof which can be critical to their
design.
12. During the 1970s, failures caused by
these problems precipitated some very expen-
sive lawsuits in theUSA and the UK-indeed,
one of these cases eventuallyled to a changein
English law.9 This was the Latent DamageAct
of 1986, which shifted the startof the period
during which a plaintiff can sue to the point a t
which damage is observed.
13. In order to avoid these situations, it is
essential that the chimney designeris made
fully aware of all operating conditions required
of the chimney and, to this end, the CICIND has
published a Customer's guide to specifying
chimneys.
Chemical effects
14. Flue gases contain many chemicals
whose type depends on the materials burned.
Some of these chemicals may attack structural
elements with which they come into contact.
15. The most common chemical hazard to a
chimney is acid corrosion of vulnerable sur-
..
Flue gas
opening
I- Fig. 3. Concrete
7"'#X'"'--
I
I
I /J
chimney with
free-standing
l /
Foundation brickwork liner
faces, dueto the condensation of sulphuric acid
from the flue gas.Most fossil fuels contain
sulphur to some degree and, as the fuel is
burned, this sulphur isoxidized to sulphur
dioxide (SO,). SO, can combine with water and
condense a t low temperatures to form weak sul-
phurous acid. During combustion, someof the
SO, oxidizes further to sulphur trioxide (SO,),
depending in a complex and little understood
manner on the following: flame temperature
and residence time; the presenceof catalysts
and the amountof excess combustion air. Sul-
phuric acid isformed by the combinationof
SO, and water, and condenses outof the flue
gas when the flue gas temperature fallsbelow
the 'acid dewpoint' (ADP) or when it comes into
contact with relativelycool surfaces. The ADP
of sulphuric acid ranges from about90°C for
71
 PRITCHARD

chimney is subject to differential temperatures

over this length. Restraintof the distortion
resulting from differential expansion was a
major cause of the structural failureof a
number of steel liners in the late 1960s.’ In
general, current practice is tominimize the
restraint by minimizing the numberof lateral
supports, consistent with maintaining structur-
al stability.

Difficult operating conditions

25. A chimney can have extremely variable
operating conditions, which make its design
very difficult. Such conditions arisein a
chimney serving several furnaces and/or
boilers, or serving a single unit incorporating
an energy conservation or pollution scrubbing
device, capableof being bypassed. In such con-
ditions, a design which suits one situation may
be unsuitable for other situations. Such a
problem is best solved using a multi-flue ?m,
-
pD2 -ND‘IU
chimney but, where thisis not possible (e.g. in
retrofit situations), compromise is necessary. 1.43- 300
26. Another difficulty arises when a 3.25 300
3.25 312
chimney is required to run for many years x~o3
(sometimes itswhole lifetime) without being
shut down. Obviously a high degree of reli-
ability must be built into its design, together
with means of on-line inspection and repair.26

Cross-wind oscillation
27. When wind blows past a cylinder, vor-
tices (known as ‘Von Karman vortices ’) are
shed at regular intervals, alternately from one
side and the other. As these vortices are shed,
they create a pulseof differential pressure,
causing an alternatingforce in a direction
normal to the wind direction. The frequency at
which these vortices are shed varies with the
wind velocity, the widthof the cylinder and a
constant number (known as the ‘Strouhal
number’) whose valueis a function of the cylin-
der’s shape and the distance to any nearby
cylinders.
28. Next to acid corrosion, the most
common cause of failure in steel chimneys is
excessive response to cross-wind excitation by
Von Karman vortices. While all tall structures
are subject to this phenomenon, steel chimneys
tend to be particularly vulnerable, owing to
their low structural damping. Their response
can be ‘ broad band ’, or random, increasing
with increasing wind velocity, but canbe
potentially more violent if caused by resonance
with the frequency at which vortices are shed
(at the ‘critical windspeed’) (Fig. S).’’ Even
greater response is often experienced by a
chimney affected by vortices shed by a nearby
chimney or tower, i.e. upwind. At worst, exces-
sive response to these phenomena has caused
chimney collapse. At best, itis alarming to
“0 2 4 6 8 10
Reduced velocity WND
0 0.6 106 1.2 106 1.8 106 2.4 106 3.0 106
Reynolds number R
cient mass and structural damping to ensure Fig. 8. Cross-wind
their cross-wind response is minimal, but the response of rough
associated stresses canbe important in the very surface chimney
tall, large diameter chimneys with base- (LID = l 1.5)’’
supported steel liners associated with large
power stations.
30. These phenomena have been extensively
researched over the past 60 years or so, usually
at small scale,in wind tunnels.28Until the late
1980s, steel chimney design codesdid not give
simple and realistic guidanceto designers
regarding these p h e n ~ m e n a . ’ ~It’ is
~ ~only
recently, following the publication of the
CICIND, ASMEiANSI and the 1991 DIN 4133
steel chimney codes, that simple and realistic
means of predicting excessive response have
become available, so that designers can take
rational decisions on whether to incorporate
corrective measures (e.g. helical strakes or
dampers).
Dangers associated with falling components
31. In 1982, two men were killed when a 6 m
diameter rainshield became detached from the
top of a 150 m tall chimney in high winds and

-
74
bystanders.
29. Most concrete chimneys possess
suffi-
fell to the ground. Designers should always pay
special attention to the integrityof components
 PRITCHARD
existing chimneys. As chimneys are generally
situated in either industrial or marine areas,
carbonation and/or chloride penetrationof the
outer surface hasbecome a problem. T o counter
this and protect the reinforcement, coatings are
increasingly being applied to such chim-
n e y ~ .As ~ access
~ * ~ is~ the most costly part
of
the process, new chimneys are increasingly
being provided with these coatings during con-
struction.
Brickwork liners
37. For most situations, a liner is required
to protect the concrete shell from the thermal
and chemical effectsof the hot flue gases.
During the period 1960-70, liners of diatoma-
ceous clay insulating brickwork,laid in contact
with the concrete shell,were popular, but suf-
fered a number of problems. Experience
showed33 that linersof externally insulated
acid-resistant brickwork, with a ventilated air-
space between liner and concrete shell, gave a
better performance. Most liners continue to be
built of acid-resisting brickwork, especially in
situations involvingFGD in which the flue gas
is cool, wet and highly corrosive.
38. ‘ Acid-resistant brickwork ’ implies dif-
ferent brick materials in Germany, compared
with the UK and the USA. German acid-
resistant bricks are relatively lightweight and
pervious, deriving their acid resistance from
the chemistry of their constituents. British and
US bricks, on the other hand, are heavy and
dense, and derive theiracid resistance from
their impermeability. German bricks are pro-
vided with ‘ tongue and groove’ joints, which
improve their joint strength. British andUS
bricks have traditionally been plain, but pro-
filed joints have recently been introduced with
some success. The mortar used is usually based
on potassium silicate, but forlow temperature
applications and situations where alkalis are
present, organic furane mortars are often used.
Early chimneys used sodium silicate based
mortars, but these tendto be disrupted after
prolonged exposure to acid and areno longer
used.
39. While in the USA most brickwork liners
have been full height, at least200 mm thick and
supported independently of the shell, in Euro-
pean and Asian chimneys they have been in
short sections, each supported by the shell,
using corbels or other support arrangements.
Designers using plain-faced British type bricks available for designers. Recently, however, the
have been reluctant to call for single brick liner CICIND has approved publicationof a Model
sections (100 mm thick) greater than 10 m tall. Code covering this
Using German dovetailed bricks, however,
section heights of 25 m are common and have
been successful up to75 m tall. A popular
design in German chimneys involves a sand-
-
wich of quite thin (75 mm) bricks, with a filling 70 -80°C when they enter the chimney. They
of foam-glass insulation.
40. Insulationisrequiredinmostcasesto
76
minimize the thermal gradient through the
brickwork-it is excessive thermal gradients
that initiate cracks in the brickwork.While
these cracks initially form onlyin the outer
(cool) part of the brickwork, subsequent
thermal cycling tends to propagate them
through the brick thickness and thento widen
them until stability concerns require repairof
the liner. While insulation helps to minimize
the long-term thermal gradients,it does little to
help alleviate the short-term gradients that
develop during rapid start-up and shut-down
(sometimes known as ‘thermal shock’). It has
been shown34 that thermal shock causes
surface damage only, but repeated shocks can
eventually disrupt the bricks to considerable
depth. Being relatively soft, German-type
bricks tend to accept quite high levels of
thermal shock without damage. British bricks,
however, are brittle and susceptibleto this sort
of damage.
41. Scandinavian builders have successfully
included stainless steel reinforcementin the
mortar beds of their chimney liners for many
years, but this practice has seen little favour
elsewhere. Recently, however, a German builder
has introduced reinforcementin profiled brick-
work joints35 with some success, as has a
British builder. In Germany, the useof external
prestressing straps has alsobeen used SUC-
. ~ ~of reinforcement or prestress is
c e s s f ~ l l yUse
necessary if liners are builtof non-circular pro-
files (such as ellipses), owing to bending
stresses introduced by the differences in flue
gas and ventilation air pressure.
42. While DIN 1056 and the earlier versions
of ACI 307 gave some guidanceon the design of
brickwork liners, it was not until the CICIND
developed a model code37in 1988 that com-
prehensive design rules became available (see
Appendix 1).
43. CEN TC 297 Work Group 4 is currently
developing a Eurocode to cover chimney liners
of brickwork, and manyof the concepts intro-
duced by the CICIND code will be included in
this document.
Steel liners
44. While the report published in 1970 by
the ASCE’ provides some guidance to designers
of steel liners (especially regarding the effects
of differential temperatures in the flue gases),
no national or international code hasbeen
(see
Appendix 1).
Glass reinforced plastic (GRP) liners
45. Since the advent of FGD, flue gas tem-
peratures have typicallybeen in the region of
are also highly corrosive. Therefore, consider-
able interest hasbeen shown in GRP liners
 INDUSTRIAL
CHIMNEYS

during the pastfew years. Some formulations strakes (or spoilers) that provided anefficient
of the polymers used have excellent acid resist- means of preventing motion induced by vor-
ance andso, at first sight, appear very well tices generated by the chimney itself.27 As the
suited to the purpose. A potential difficulty spoilers merely delay formation of the vortices,
lies, however, in their poor performance a t high they were of little use in controlling response to
temperatures. Nearly all FGD systems are vortices generated by another chimney or
equipped with a by-pass arrangement,so that, tower, upstream.41If the chimneys were close
in the event of a failure of the FGD equipment, enough together, a solution was to tiethem
the plant can continue to operate (even if only with a wire ropein the form of a ‘figure-of-
for the shorttime needed to allow an orderly eight ’ (Fig. 10). Otherwise, either guying or the
shut-down). Thus the risk always exists that use of a heavy refractory lining wasoften the
the liner will be exposed to high temperature, only available solution.
untreated flue gas, with the possibility that it 52. While the helical spoiler is itself inex-
may buckle. One solution is to divert the hot pensive, the additional wind drag it generates
flue gas to a standby stack, capable of suddenly has an expensiveeffect on the supporting
handling hot gas3’ Another is to provide a chimney and foundation-so much so that its
large opening in the sideof the liner, normally use limits the competitivenessof steel chimneys
closed by louvres. When high temperature flue to heights below about 80 m. Another result of
gas is detectedin the duct upstreamof the the increased wind dragis that it is not usually
chimney, the louvreswould be opened auto- possible to retrofit spoilers-as a result, many
matically to allow cooling air into the liner. designers included them during initial con-
46. No national codes currently exist for the struction, whether theywere necessary or not.
design of GRP chimneys and liners, but the 53. In order to provide a solution for all
CICIND is developing amodel code which it forms of wind excitation and also tominimize
plans to publish in about1997. the additional wind drag, various types of
damper have been developed during the past 15
Developments in steel chimneys years. These range from tuned mass dampers4’
47. Three major considerations have to the impact dampingprovided by hanging
occupied the thoughts of those concerned with and multi-flue chimneys.44 In addition.
the design of steel chimneys during the past 30 ‘ active ’ dampers, which detect movement and
years. These relate to the problemsof acid cor- provide a suitable stabilizing reaction, are
rosion and cross-wind response, andto the under de~elopment.~’ As the additional wind
design of bolted connections. drag is negligible, these dampers canbe
retrofitted and their use allows steel chimneys
Acid corrosion to be competitive with concrete chimneys at
48. Provided that the flue gases entering the heights up to about100 m.
chimney are above theirADP temperature, effi- 54. Since the advent in 1988 of relatively
cient external insulation will normally ensure simple methods of predicting with some con-
that both the steel and the gases remain above fidence the response of a chimney, some very
ADP. Providing there are no air leaks through slender chimneys havebeen built which have
the chimney shell, this should prevent acid cor- suffered problems owing to resonance with the
rosion. External insulationcould be of mineral chimney’s secondary mode. As tunedmass Fig. 10. ‘Figure-of-eight’
wool or could simply be an air gap underneath dampers can be designed to
satisfy
both roped
connection of
aluminum cladding. If, however, internal fire is primary and secondary modes of response45s46 twosteelstacks
a consideration, provision of an internal
medium density refractory liner could provide a
better solution. Turnbuckle
49. If, owing to the provision of FGD or an
energy saving device (e.g. an air preheater), the
flue gases entering the chimney are below ADP
temperature, the steel will require protection.
This could take the form of a liner (of GRP, for
instance) or a coating.40
50. If the chimney serves a number of units,
it is common nowadays to provide multi-flue
chimneys. This limits the impacton the total
plant, if a problem occurs in one unit or its
liner. It also limits the variation that can
be
expected in flue gas conditions, so that each
liner can be optimally designed.
Cross-wind response
51. In the 1950s, the National Physical
Laboratory patented the ubiquitous helical Section A-A
 PRITCHARD
and are simply retrofitted, the problems were
fairly easily solved.
Bolted connections
55. The most common form of structural
failure of steel chimneys takes the formof
cracked flanges or broken bolts at the bolted
connections usually provided. This problem is
particularly prevalent in theUK, where BS 4076
permits the useof relatively flimsy, rolled
section flanges (European practice is to use
heavier flanges, sometimes machined). A
common reason for this is overstress introduced
during construction, owing to lack-of-fit of the
flange^.^' Another reason is fatigue,as the
chimney flexes during cross-wind response.48
Fig. 11 outlines a prestressed bolted flangethat
eliminates fatigue.
Design codes
56. British Standard 4076-‘ Steel
chimneys’ hasbeen in use for many yearsin
the UK and has given reasonably satisfactory
service. It is, however, based on permissible
stress design principles and does not satisfacto-
rily address a numberof issues (see Appendix
1).
57. The CICIND Model Code, German and
US codes for steel chimney^'^*^^*^^ address all
of these issues (see Appendix1).As a result,
chimneys designed according to these codes
tend to be heavier than those designed accord- reconsider
ing to BS 4076.
58. Currently, an appendix to Eurocode 3
(Steelwork structures) isin preparation, cover- -effect of ductility on a concrete chimney’s response
ing ‘masts, towers and chimneys’. Its provi-
sions will contain many of the principles
included in the CICIND Model and DIN 4133
codes, but few of those contained in BS 4076.
Conclusions
59. The intense studies of the performance
and structural designof chimneys and their
liners, carried out over the past25 years, have
shown that, far from being simple structures,
they are very complex systems indeed. While
sufficient work has been done to transform
chimney design from the‘ Black Art ’ perceived
in the late 1960s, to the science-based pro-
cedures of today, it is apparent from the never-
ending stream of technical papers offered for
presentation at theCICIND’s twice yearly meet-
ings that more is waiting to be learned and new
techniques await invention.
Acknowledgements
60. The author is indebted to Mr D. T.
-
Smith, of Recchi Energy SPA, for permission to
reproduce Fig. 6, and toMr H. Kondo, of Mitsu-
bishi Heavy Industries Ltd, for Figs 5 and 9.
78
Appendix 1. Review of majorfeatures
of the various codes currently avail-
able
Concrete chimneys
1. CICIND: Model code f o r concrete chimneys-Part
A , The shell (October 1984):
ultimate state design, with safety factors
related to failure probability, using sophisti-
cated statistical methods; the safety factors
alsotakeaccount of theeffects Of IOW Cycle, Fig, 11. Fatigue-free
high stressf a t i g ~ e ~ ’ . ~ ’
bolted c o n n e ~ t i o n ~ . ~ ~
recognizes that under long-term dead loads,
concrete behaves in a different manner than
when it is subject to wind loads lastingno
more than a few seconds
wind load expression related to wind velocity
and takes accountof the chimney’s dynamic
response to wind gusts
dynamic analysis used to determine the
response to earthquakes
reinforcement required in both faces; recog-
nizes that thermal stresses are relievedby
cracks and provides simple rules to limit the
crack widths
approximations provided for‘ second order ’
effects, owing to the deflectionof the chimney
under ultimate wind loads (usually about
10-20% of the wind moment)
‘ chemical load ’ is defined by hours/year expo
sure to various chemicals
cross-wind response considered simply, in
terms of the Scruton numberof the chimney.
A revision is currently being developed. This will
-(velocity)2 relationship (rather than a Gumbel
distribution) to define the ultimate wind velocity53
to earthquake^^^
-limits on the use of beam versus shell theory in
determining stresses.55
While the first two changes will have the effect
of
reducing the costof the chimney shell, the last
change could increase the amountof reinforcement in
thin chimney shells.
2. ACI 307, 1995 (replaces 1988 edition):
( a ) ultimate state design, with safety factors from
building code (ACI 318) and modified by
judgement
( b ) covers precast concrete chimneys in addition
to cast-in-situ chimneys
(c) wind load expression related to wind velocity
and takes accountof the chimney’s dynamic
response to wind gusts
( d ) cross-wind response (including second mode)
calculated using complex formulae
(e) cross-wind and downwind response combined,
the along-wind component being calculated at
a reduced windspeed
( f )earthquake response calculated using modal
analysis
(g) no rules for chemical effects
(h) second order moments accounted for by
reducing ultimate strength.

3. DIN 1056, October 1984 (replaces 1969 edition):
( a ) covers precast blockwork chimneysa s well a s
reinforced cast-in-situ concrete
( b ) ultimate state design, with safety factors
derived by judgement
(c) second order moments considered
( d ) coefficients and limiting stresses defined for
calculation of thermal stresses; reinforcement
required in each face
(e) chemical load considered, in terms of hours/
year of exposure
(f)wind pressures defined for various locations in
Germany; responseof the chimney to gusts is
considered
(g) consideration of cross-wind effects only
required in exceptional cases; no guidance
given for calculating this response
(h) considers foundation design.
Brickwork liners
1. CICIND: Model code f o r concrete chimneys-Part
B. Brickwork lininas
- .(December 1991):
provides classificationsof brickwork, bricks
and mortar and defines required properties;
also provides rules for selecting brickwork
types for various duties
chemical load considered, in termsof hours/
year exposure
uses stability checks and both ultimate limit
and service limit state design principles for
structural design; safety factors derived by
judgement (emphasizes that calculations
provide only a rough guide, a s brickwork
rather variable); provides table of recommend-
ed height versus diameter/thickness for
various brickwork types
thermal stresses considered, both constant and
varying; also gravity, wind and seismic loads 1. CICIND: Model code for steel chimneys (1988):
and effects of shell deflection
defines methods of measuring design proper-
ties of brickwork, rather than providing
design properties
provides recommended start-up procedures
considers brickwork reinforcement.
2. DIN 1056 (October 1984):
(a) considers only bricks and masonry blocks
satisfying DIN standards
( b ) chemical load considered, in terms of hours/
year exposure; relates brick and mortar types
to chemical load and temperature
(c) design is for service limit state only, including
gravity and thermal loads and effectof shell
deflection; provides allowable stresses and
typical propertiesof brickwork
( d ) for liner section heights up to20 m, provides
table relating required thickness to diameter;
for taller sections, stability must be checked
(e) inspection required every two years.
Steel liners
1. Design and construction of steel chimney liners.
Report by ASCE Task Committee (1975):
( a ) identifies stresses resulting from restraint of instance, the useof shell theory,55 where appropriate.
deformation due to non-uniform temperatures Also, second mode response will be covered.
in gas stream
( b ) provides design rules, including buckling
formula; design basedon ultimate strength,
safety factors derived by judgement
INDUSTRIAL
CHIMNEYS
(c) considers movement of liner in response to
earthquakes and wind actionon outer shell
( d ) considers geometric discontinuities, ovalling
oscillations, designof stiffeners andof lateral
restraints
(e) provides guidance on layout and support of
liner, welding and erection
( f ) includes design examples.
2. CICIND: Model code f o r concrete chimneys-Part
C, Steel liners (1995):
( a ) uses ultimate limit state for structural design
(including stability checks); safety factors
derived by judgement; buckling formula in
line with Eurocode requirements
( b ) considers gravity, pressure, seismic, wind and
thermal loads and also effectsof shell deflec-
tion; stresses due to differential temperature
effects obtained using method given in ASCE
report
( c ) provides temperature limits for structural and
alloy steels, together with propertiesof struc-
tural steels at elevated temperatures
( d ) relates internal corrosion allowance to chemi-
cal load, expressed in termsof hours/year
exposure
(e) provides guidance on design and positioning
of liner supports, bolted and welded connec-
tions, openings in liner, rainshield; also, guid-
ance on provisionof refractory and acid
resistant linings.
3. DIN 1056 (1984)
( a ) requires that steel liners be designed per DIN
4133 (Steel stacks)
Steel chimneys
( a ) permits use of normal structural steel up to
400°C; provides propertiesof structural steels
at elevated temperatures
( 6 ) design based on ultimate limit state, with
safety factors derived by economic prin-
c i p l e ~buckling
;~~ formula in line with Euro-
code requirements
(c) wind load expression related to wind velocity
and takes accountof the chimney’s dynamic
response to wind gusts
( d ) susceptibility to cross-wind effects based
simply on Scruton numberS,; prevention mea-
sures required for high susceptibilityS,< 5;
considers fatigue when susceptibility is mod-
erate (5 < S, < 15)
(e) considers ‘prying’ effect in design of bolted
connections; also, considers ‘fatigue-free’ pre-
stressed connections5’
(f) relates internal corrosion allowance to chemi-
cal load, expressed in termsof hours/year
exposure
(g) appendices consider welding, guyed chimneys,
linings, insulation and access provisions.
It is intended that work will begin shortly on updat-
ing the model code-taking into account, for
2. ASMEiANSI STS-1-1986 (published May 1988)
(a) design based on ultimate limit state, with
safety factors based on modified building code
79
 PRITCHARD
requirements; buckling formula same as that
in ASCE report on Steel Chimney Liners (1975)
wind load expression related to wind velocity
and takes accountof the chimney’s dynamic
response to wind gusts
susceptibility to cross-wind effects based
simply on ‘ mass-damping ’ (similar to Scruton
number); similar rules apply to those in the
CICIND Model Code; also, similar guidance on
fatigue
comprehensive discussionof chemical effects;
relates internal coating/lining requirements to
chemical load, expressed in termsof hours/
year exposure
earthquake loads considered, using dynamic
methods
guidance provided on draft and heat transfer
calculations
foundation design considered.
Y
3. BS 4076: Steel chimneys (1989-replaces 1978
edition):
( a ) uses permissible stresses at service limit state
only; simplified buckling formula used
( b ) wind load based on wind velocity but takes no
account of dynamic responseof chimney
(c) unsatisfactory treatment of cross-wind
response, encouraging the fitting of helical
spoilers when not strictly required”
( d ) no guidance on fatigue considerations
(e) permits use of normal structural steel up to
480°C; provides property reduction factors for
high temperatures
(f)rather imprecise relationship between chemi-
cal effects and corrosion allowances
(g) allows use of flimsy flanges
( h ) considers linings and insulation design
( i ) recommendsinspectionprocedures.
4. DIN 4133: Steel stacks (November 1991-replaces
1973 edition)
permits use of normal structural steel up to
300°C; provides propertiesof structural and
alloy steels at elevated temperatures
(generally lower strengths than permitted by 15. DAVENPORT
CICIND Model Code)
design based on ultimate limit state, with
safety factors based on modified building code 16. HENSELER
requirements; shell theory required for thin-
walled chimneys with small height/diameter
ratio; buckling formula in line with DIN 18800 17. SCHULTZ
requirements
wind load expression related to wind pres-
sures defined for various parts of Germany
and takes accountof the chimney’s dynamic
response to wind gusts
provides a slightly more complex means than 19. SOWIZAL
the CICIND Model Code of predicting ampli-
tudes and stresses due to cross-wind response,
but provides no limits other than on stresses; 20. SNWKK. (USA). US experience with chimneys
fatigue checks also necessary
relates internal corrosion allowance to chemi-
cal load, expressed in termsof hours/year
exposure
considers guyed chimneys
considers foundation design.
References
-
80
1. GRUBB K. (UK). Thedevelopment,designand
operation of large
multi-flue
chimneys for
thermal power stations in the United Kingdom.
3rd Int. Chimney Design Symp.,Munich, Oct.
1978. CICIND.
2. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVILENGINEERS Design and
construction ofsteel chimney liners. ASCE, New
York, 1975.
3. FRUMKIN V. K. (USSR). Unconventional methods
for concrete chimney repair. CICIND Report, 1992,
8, No. 2.
4. BUSCHD. (Germany) Special featuresof using
cooling towers a s chimneys. 6th Int. Chimney
Conf., Brighton, May 1988,CICIND.
5. C O M INTERNATIONAL
I~ DES CHEMINEES
INDUSTRIELLES. Manual for the maintenance and
inspection of brickwork and concrete chimneys.
CICIND, Feb. 1993.
6. MILLER J. (USA). Hot camera inspections.CICIND
Report, 1987, 3, No. 1, Spring.
7. SAGEAU J. F. (France). The dynamic monitoring of
industrial chimneys CICIND Report, 1987,3, No.
1, Spring.
8. SACEAU J. F. (France). Monitoring power station
chimneys. CICIND Report, 1994, 10,No. 2,
Autumn.
9. REYNOLDS M. P. AND KINGP. S. D. The expert
witness and his evidence.Blackwell Scientific
Publications, Oxford, 1992, 2nd edn, 46-47.
10. PIERCER. R. (USA). Estimating acid dewpoints in
stack gases. Chemical engineerings. 1977, Apr.
11. BUNZG., DIEPENBERG H. AND RENDLE A.
(Germany). Influenceof fuel oil characteristics
and combustion conditionson the flue gas
properties in W-T boilers.J. Inst. Fuel, 1967,
Sept.
12. LECHAND LEWANDOWSKI (USA). Preventionof cold
end corrosion in industrial boilers.Corrosion.
1979, Mar. (Atlanta).
13. COMIT~? INTERNATIONAL DES CHEMINEES
INDUSTRIELLES. Model code for concrete chimneys,
Part A : The shell. CICIND, Oct. 1984.
14. COMIT~ INTERNATIONAL DES CHEMINEES
INDUSTRIELLES. Model codef o r steel chimneys.
CICIND, May 1988.
J. AND SMITH D. T. (UK). Hot air jacket
for multi-flue steel liners in a 150 m tall chimney.
CICIND Report, 1991,7, No. 2, Autumn.
F.(Germany). Prevailing conditions at
the top of chimneys. CICIND Report, 1993, 9, No.
1, Spring.
J. F. (USA) Basic information for
designers of incinerator chimneys. 6th Int.
Chimney Conf., Brighton, May 1988,CICIND.
18. HENSELER F. (Germany). Desulphurisation systems
and their effect on operational conditions of
chimneys. CICIND Report, 1987,3, No. 2, Autumn.
J. (USA). Overview of USA experience
with linings and coatingsf o r concrete chimneys.
CICIND Report, 1992, 8 , No. 1, Spring.
serving wet flue gas desulfurization systems. 5th
Int. Chimney Congress, Essen,Oct. 1984, CICIND.
21. BEAUMONT M. (UK); ULIANAF. AND POLIM. (Italy)
Corrosion protection of steel liners in chimneys
servingplants with FGD on stream. CICIND
Report, 1990, 6 , No. 2, Autumn.
22. STELLA F. (Italy). Quality control systems f o r the
using lining,
installation
chimney
Hastelloyof a
the ‘wall-papering technique’. CICIND Report,
1994, 10, No. 2, Autumn.

23. Lining up steel support.New Civil Engineer. Drax
Supplement. Thomas Telford, London, 1993,Nov.
24. VANDERSWT R. J. (Netherlands). Protection of
an FGDplant: surface treatment after several
years of operation. CICIND Report, 1990,6,No. 2,
Autumn.
25. COLLIER S. (UK)..Protection of steel and concrete
surfaces in the FGD environment. CICIND Report,
1994, 10, No. 1, Spring.
26. PRITCHARD B. N., BRWKBANK V. AND BUTTER-
WORTH J. (UK). The designof a new, high
integrity, liner in an existing concrete
chimney-4th Int. Symp. Industrial Chimneys,
The Hague, May1981. Institute TNO, Delft, The
Netherlands.
27. SCRUTON C. AND FLINT A. R. (UK). ‘Wind excited
oscillations of structures’. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs,
1964,27, Apr., 673-702.
28. Across-flow response due to vortex shedding.
Engineering Sciences Data Unit, item78006, Oct.
1978.
29. MILFORD R. V. (S. Africa). Appraisal of methods
for predicting the cross-wind responseof
chimneys. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs,Part 2, 1982, 73,
Mar. 313-328.
30. PRITCHARD B. N. (UK). Steel chimney oscillations:
a comparative studyof their reported behaviour
versus predictions using existing codes.Int. Conf.
on Design Against Wind Induced Failure, Bristol
Jan. 1984 (reported in Engng Structs, 1984, 6, No.
4, Oct.).
31. ERDMANN W.(Germany). Protecting the outer
surfaces of chimneys downstream offluegas
cleanup equipment. CICIND Report, 1993,9, No. 1,
Spring.
32. CHALKLEY R. (UK). Concrete solution to a concrete
problem. Construction Repair. 1988, Nov./Dec.,
39-41.
33. PRITCHARD B. N. (UK). Performance survey of
liners in concrete chimneys.3rd Int. Chimney
Design Symp., Munich, Oct. 1978.
34. BARRINGTON K. R. AND FAVILLE W. S. (UK).
Chimney construction-materials available to the
engineer. Chimney Design Symp.,Edinburgh,
April 1973. Centre of Industrial Consultancy and
Liaison, University of Edinburgh.
35. BUSCH D.AND NOAKOWSKI P. (Germany). Brick
lining reinforcement with protective coating.
CICIND Report. 1994,10,No. 2, Autumn.
36. ERTZW.(Germany). Prestressed liner forFGD
plant chimneys. 6th Int. Chimney Conf., Brighton,
UK, May 1988, CICIND.
37. COMITkINTERNATIONAL DES CHEMINkES
INDUSTRIELLES. Model code f o r concrete chimneys,
Part B: Brickwork Linings. CICIND, Dec. 1991.
38. C O M IINTERNATIONAL
~ DES CHEMIN~ES
INDUSTRIELLES. Model code for concrete chimneys,
Part C: Steel liners.CICIND, 1995.
INDUSTRIAL
CHIMNEYS
39. VAN DORNICK K. (Germany). Particular stresses
for chimneys in by-pass operation. 6th Int.
Chimney Conf., Brighton, UK, May 1988, CICIND.
40. COMIT~ INTERNATIONAL DES CHEMIN~ES
INDUSTRIELLES. Manual on protective coatings and
coating systems for concrete and steel chimney
surfaces and their appurtenances. CICIND
(currently draft for review; publication
anticipated in 1996).
41. ZDRAVKOVICH M. M. (UK). Reduction of
effectiveness of means for suppressing
wind-induced oscillation. Znt. Conf. on Design
Against Wind Induced Failure, Bristol, Jan. 1984
(reported in Engng Structs, 1984, 6,No. 4, Oct.).
42. HIRSCHG. (Germany). Practical experiences
respecting passive controlof steel chimney
vibrations by meansof a new type of auxiliary
damping system.5th Int. Chimney Congr., Essen,
Germany, Oct. 1984.
43. STEVICK G. R. AND BURKE B. G. (USA). Hanging
chain impact dampers: Field test results and
design procedure. 6th Int. Chimney Conf.,
Brighton, May 1988,CICIND.
44. WARREN R. M. AND RIEDS. (USA). Shell to flue
impact damping for dual wall multiflue
and steel
chimneys. CICIND Report, 1994,10, No. 1,Spring.
45. HIRSCHG. AND JOZSAM. (Germany). Optimum
control of chimney vibration. CICIND Report,
1994, 10, No. 1, Spring.
46. BIERRUM N. R. (UK). Mistuned mass dampers.
CICIND Report, 1994,10, No. 2, Autumn.
47. PINFOLDG. (UK). Effect of flange geometry on the
strength of bolted joints. CICIND Report, 1995, 11,
No. 1, Spring.
48. BOWMANL. P. (Netherlands). Bolted connections
dynamically loaded in tension.]. Struct. Diu. Am.
Soc. Civ. Engrs, 1982, ST9.
49. DEUTSCHE INDUSTRIE NORM.Steel stacks. DIN,
Berlin, 1991, DIN 4133.
50. ASME/ANSI. May 1988, ASMEiANSI STS-1-1986
Steel stacks.
51. BUCHER, BOTTENBRUCH, SCHUELLER AND
NOAKOWSKI (Germany). Safety concepts in
chimney design. 5th Int. Chimney Congr.,Essen,
Oct. 1984, CICIND.
52. SCHOBER AND SCHLAICH (Germany). Ultimate
strength of reinforced concrete chimneys. 5th Int.
Chimney Congr., Essen, Oct. 1984, CICIND.
53. BIERRUM N. R. (UK). Extreme wind and failure
probability. CICIND Report, 1989,5, No. 1,
Summer.
54. ALLSOPA, BOOTHE. and BLANCHARD J. (UK).
Design of concrete chimneys in areasof high
seismicity. CICIND Report, 1993, 9, No. 2,
Summer.
55. VANKOTENH. (Netherlands). The stress
distribution in chimneys due to wind pressure.
CICIND Report, 1995, 11, No. 1,Spring.