Internati onal Journal of Engineering Technol ogy Science and Research

IJ ETS R
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 3386
Volume 2, S pecial Issue
September 2015

Correlation of Geometry and Dynamic Response of SelfSupported Short Circular Steel Stacks
Harshal Deshpande 1 , Post Graduate Student in Structural Engineering,
Saraswati College of Engineering, Kharghar
Roshni John2 , Assistant Professor, Saraswati College of Engineering, Kharghar
ABSTRACT
Steel stacks are smoke releasing slender structures constructed in various industries. They are subjected to static and
dynamic loadings. Dynamic analysis is carried out by considering both seismic loading and dynamic wind loadings.
Apparently dynamic wind effects are critical for steel stacks and they govern the stability conditions. Steel stacks being
slender and long sections they are more prone to dynamic wind oscillations and corresponding stresses. Present study
deals with interrelation of geometrical configuration and obtained dynamic response of short self-supported steel stacks
under dynamic wind loadings and seismic loadings. 42 steel stack configurations for 7 different heights of stacks are
selected and analyzed for dynamic wind loadings and seismic loadings as per Indian standards (IS:6533 part2)and IS
1893(part 4). a relation between dynamic response and governing geometry of the stack is found out. Use of excel sheets
and STAAD-proV8i software is done for analysis.
Keywords
Dynamic wind response, steel stacks, analysis of dynamic wind for slender stacks, oscillations of steel stacks.

1. INTRODUCTION
Stacks or chimneys are very important industrial structures for releasing out waste harmful gases to a higher
elevation in atmosphere. Stack structures are tall, slender and tapering with circular cross-sections. Steel
stacks are ideally suited for works involving short heating period and less thermal capacity. Fig. 1.1 shows
chimneys located in an industrial campus.

Fig.1.1 industrial steel stacks

133

Harshal Deshpande 1 , Roshni John2

Internati onal Journal of Engineering Technol ogy Science and Research

IJ ETS R
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 3386
Volume 2, S pecial Issue
September 2015

1.1Analysis of Steel Stacks

1.1.1 forces acting on steel stacks
Steel chimneys or stacks are basically under the influence of following loads
1. Static load
2. Dynamic wind load
3. Seismic loads
Static loads include self-weight and weight of lining and other components of stacks. (Ref.IS
6533(part1):1989)It also includes static wind loads and corresponding static wind pressures. (Ref. IS
875(part3):1987).Dynamic wind effects include along wind and across wind effects .this includes the drag
forces and the vortex excitation along with aerodynamic forces acting on stack causing stacks to
oscillate(ref.IS 6533(part 2):1989). 3. Seismic effects include the effect of dynamic force exerted on the steel
stacks during earthquakes. in current work response spectrum method is used to analyze the selected steel
stacks.
1.2 Geometry of steel stacks
Geometry of a stack or a chimney plays an important role in the process of analysis as it affects the stiffness
parameters. (Ref. IS 6533:1989 part2). Basic geometry of steel stack is governed by top diameter (D t), base
diameter (Db ) and effective height of stack (H e). Following IS codes are used for the analysis of steel stack.
1. IS 6533 (Part-1): 1989 Indian standard design and construction of steel stacks-code of practice Mechanical aspects.
2. IS 6533 (Part-2): 1989 Indian Standard Code of practice for design and construction of steel chimneys
"structural aspects.
3. IS 875 (Part-3):1987: For calculation of wind loads
4. IS 1893 (Part-4):2005: This code covers the seismic considerations to be followed for the design .Seismic
zones and formulae based on design considerations will be included from this code.
2. FORMULATION OF RESEARCH PROBLEM
2.1 Description of selected steel stacks/chimneys
1.
Type of stack = circular self-supporting industrial steel stacks
2.
Heights of stacks: 30 m ,35m,40m,45m ,50m ,55m,60 m ( short stacks)
3.
Top diameter for each stack is taken as minimum h/30 as per provision in IS 6533 :1989
4.
Variation in base diameter for each stack for fixed value of top diameter will be in following
incremental ratios (ratio Db /Dt ) : 1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,2.0,2.1
5.
Type: unlined single flume.
6.
Temperature inside chimney : 2000 c average
7.
Flare height: one third of total height.
8.
Thickness of stack shell= 16 mm ( constant for all stacks)
9.
Base : rigid
10.
location :Mumbai
11.
wind speed : 44m/s
12.
material :Mild steel
13.
variation in geometry : top to base diameter ratio in each configuration
14.
soil :medium (bearing capacity 200kN/m2 )
15.
seismic zone :III

134

Harshal Deshpande 1 , Roshni John2

Internati onal Journal of Engineering Technol ogy Science and Research

IJ ETS R
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 3386
Volume 2, S pecial Issue
September 2015

16.
damping :5%
17.
connections :welded joints
IS Codal provisions for geometry are the basis of variations in the geometry. Minimum top diameter of
unlined chimney should be one twentieth of the effective height of chimney /stacks and minimum
outside diameter at the base should be equal to 1.6 times the top diameter of the stack . (As per IS
6533(part2):1989 (reaffirmed in 2003) cl.7.2.4 (b) and (c).)Manual calculations are done for validating the
results of STAAD-pro v8i software results. Dynamic wind responses are calculated using MS-excel sheets and
seismic responses are calculated by STAAD-pro v8i.
Table 1 geometry of selected steel stacks
Total height of Effective
Top
Varying top to bottom diameters ratio.
stack
height
diameter
From minimum 1.6 and then increased by 0.1 up to 2.1
(Metres) (H)
(2/3 H)
(constant)
Dt/ Db ratio
(Metres)
(H/30)

H
30
35
40
45
50
55
60

He
20
23.33
26.66
29.97
33.33
36.3
40

Dt (m)
1
1.16
1.33
1.5
1.66
1.83
2.00

1.6
Db (m)
1.6
1.856
2.128
2.4
2.656
2.928
3.2

1.7
Db (m)
1.7
1.972
2.261
2.55
2.822
3.111
3.4

1.8
Db (m)
1.8
2.088
2.394
2.7
2.988
3.294
3.6

1.9
Db (m)
1.9
2.204
2.527
2.85
3.154
3.477
3.8

2.0
Db (m)

2.0
2.32
2.66
3.00
3.32
3.66
4.00

2.1
Db (m)
2.1
2.436
2.793
3.15
3.486
3.843
4.2

3. Methodology
3.1 general procedures for dynamic analysis
Chart1: Schematic Representation of Dynamic Analysis

3.2 dynamic wind sample calculations (as per IS 6533 (part2):1989)

Dynamic wind response includes dynamic force, dynamic moment and corresponding deflections
Calculations are done by using excel sheets .total 18 excel sheets are prepared for iterative calculations.
Sample calculation results for 30m chimney are shown in short below.

135

Harshal Deshpande 1 , Roshni John2

Internati onal Journal of Engineering Technol ogy Science and Research

IJ ETS R
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 3386
Volume 2, S pecial Issue
September 2015

Table 3.2 Sample Calculation for 30 M Chimney with 1m Top Diameter and 1.6m Base Diameter

Cumm. Ht

5
10
15
20
25
30
Segmental Ht.

P static
(N)
5938.3
4709.7
4672.9
5079.0
5341.5
5610.5
Yik & Yij

Time Period
(Sec)
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.685
Mk & Mj

i from table 5 IS 6533 p.2

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Unlined
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502
2.502

0.6
0.6
0.575
0.55
0.5325
0.515

5
10
15
20
25
30

kg
2884
2280.6
1979
1979
1979
1979

0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7

ij
Pdyn

staad
0.0223
0.1037
0.265
0.4859
0.7377
1.0

Mk

0.045
0.2089
0.5339
0.9789
1.486
2.0145

Newton
2.28
8.37
18.565
34.037
51.673
70.049

Pk (Kn)
5.94
4.72
4.69
5.11
5.39
5.68

3.3 Seismic Response sample Calculations (for 30 m chimney)(IS 1893 (part4):1989)

Seismic Zone = Zone III, Zone Factor (Z) = 0.16
Importance Factor (I) = 1.5
Response Reduction Factor (R) = 2.0
Fundamental Time Period (T) = CTWt.hEs.A.g = 0.665s
Fundamental Time Period for Flared Structure (Te) = T/2 = 0.3325s
Radius of Gyration (re) = 12(Db2 ) = 0.565m
Base Diameter (Db) = 1.6m
Slenderness ratio (k) = h/ re = 53.09
Coefficient (CT) = 1.8*k = 95.57
Weight of Stack = 254kN (As per STAAD.Pro)
Elastic Modulus of Steel = 200000 MPa
Cross sectional Area at the base of shell (A) = .Db.Ts = 0.08 sq.m
Acceleration due to gravity (g) = 9.81 m/s 2
Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value (Ah) = (Z2).(Sag)(RI) = 0.15
Spectral acceleration coefficient (Sa/g) = 2.5 (As per Clause 6.4.5 of IS 1893(Part-1): 2002 for Medium soil)
Design Static Seismic Base Shear (Vb) = Cv. Ah. W. Dv = 57.15kN

136

Harshal Deshpande 1 , Roshni John2

Internati onal Journal of Engineering Technol ogy Science and Research

IJ ETS R
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 3386
Volume 2, S pecial Issue
September 2015

Table 3.2 Calculation of Base Shear:

Fundamental Time
Period (Sec)

Mode Shape
Coefficient ()

Wi.i

Wi.i

0.11

0.175

17.72

3.10

0.04

0.35

13.58

4.75

0.04

0.525

20.37

10.70

0.15

0.7

54.33

38.03

C1

1.87

Design Horizontal
Acceleration

Design Base
Shear (kN)

0.15

9.96

0.15

7.63

0.15

11.45

0.15

30.54

0.33
106.01 56.58
59.58
3.4 Sample Calculations for Dynamic Wind Loads by Excel Sheets and Seismic Responses by STAAD Prov8i

Fig 3.1 a) sample excel sheet for dynamic wind load

3.5 Seismic Loads Calculations models of 30 m ,45m and 60 m with 6 variations of top to base diameters are
modeled in STAAD-proV8i .for fundamental time period, frequency ,mode shapes ,von mises stresses
,principal stresses bending stresses, base shear and moments using response spectrum method.

137

Harshal Deshpande 1 , Roshni John2

Internati onal Journal of Engineering Technol ogy Science and Research

IJ ETS R
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 3386
Volume 2, S pecial Issue
September 2015

Fig 3.2 sample STAAD-pro model of a 30m chimney with first mode

Fig 3.3 absolute stresses on steel stack 45m

138

Harshal Deshpande 1 , Roshni John2

Internati onal Journal of Engineering Technol ogy Science and Research

IJ ETS R
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 3386
Volume 2, S pecial Issue
September 2015

Fig .3.4 maximum von mises stresses on steel stack 45 m

4. Results
Height (m)

30

35

139

Top Dia(m)

1.000

1.160

Table 4.1 Dynamic Wind responses

Bottom Dia(m) P (kN) V (kN) M (kN.m)
safe
safe
safe
1.600
128.312 31.537
475.919

Deflection (mm)
safe
48.535

1.700

130.290

31.938

477.303

45.547

1.800

132.260

32.341

478.706

43.017

1.000

134.240

32.745

480.125

40.851

2.000

136.212

33.149

481.557

38.980

2.100

138.185

33.554

483.000

37.350

1.856

174.012

43.842

776.346

68.725

1.972

176.683

44.388

778.523

64.495

2.088

179.350

44.935

780.741

60.911

2.204

182.020

45.483

782.980

57.843

2.320

184.693

46.033

785.240

55.192

2.436

187.363

46.583

787.525

52.883

Harshal Deshpande 1 , Roshni John2

Internati onal Journal of Engineering Technol ogy Science and Research

IJ ETS R
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 3386
Volume 2, S pecial Issue
September 2015

40

1.330

45

1.500

60

Height
(m)

30

35

140

2.000

Top
Dia(m)

1.000

1.160

2.128

228.390

59.255

1201.670

91.608

2.261

231.886

59.978

1204.969

85.962

2.394

235.385

60.703

1208.328

81.177

2.527

238.884

61.430

1211.738

77.082

2.660

242.382

62.159

1215.189

73.543

2.793

245.881

62.889

1218.679

70.461

2.400
2.550

290.137
294.576

77.265
78.192

1767.419
1772.188

118.399
111.097

2.700

299.015

79.123

1777.053

104.909

2.850

303.454

80.056

1781.999

99.612

3.000

307.893

80.992

1787.012

95.035

3.150

312.333

81.930

1792.081

91.048

3.200

517.061

127.03

3913.951

195.594

3.400

524.953

128.48

3923.701

183.522

3.600

532.845

129.91

3932.951

173.255

3.800

540.736

131.4

3943.901

164.518

4.000

548.628

132.85

3954.051

156.944

4.200

556.52

134.32

3964.401

150.339

Table 4.2 Seismic responses

Time period
Bottom Dia(m) (T) (sec.)
Frequency(f)

SRSS shear(kN)

Absolute
shear (kN)

1.600
1.700

0.3325
0.322

3.007
3.103

61.65
72.83

81.06
79.96

1.800

0.3125

3.192

78.83

78.92

1.000

0.3054

3.274

77.76

77.93

2.000

0.2985

3.349

60.58

77.01

2.100

0.2925

3.418

57.57

76.14

1.856

0.376

2.654

103.03

113.83

1.972

0.3664

2.729

82.33

112.51

2.088

0.3572

2.799

89.79

111.24

2.204

0.349

2.865

108.91

110.03

2.320

0.3417

2.926

78.29

108.88

Harshal Deshpande 1 , Roshni John2

Internati onal Journal of Engineering Technol ogy Science and Research

IJ ETS R
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 3386
Volume 2, S pecial Issue
September 2015

40

45

50

55

60

1.330

1.500

1.660

1.830

2.000

2.436

0.3293

3.037

76.02

106.73

2.128

0.4553

2.196

116.98

140.21

2.261

0.4352

2.297

126.28

137.37

2.394

0.4268

2.343

134.07

136.05

2.527

0.4191

2.386

101.7

134.79

2.660

0.4060

2.463

130.51

132.46

2.793

0.4003

2.498

93.33

131.38

2.400

0.4989

2.004

138.51

182.46

2.550

0.4834

2.069

153.76

179.97

2.700

0.4699

2.128

176.53

177.62

2.850

0.4583

2.182

132.27

175.4

3.000

0.4481

2.232

126.25

173.32

3.150

0.4391

2.277

165.6

171.36

2.656
2.822

0.5430
0.5324

1.841
1.878

165.8
166.33

230.23
228.34

2.988

0.5138

1.946

161.06

224.72

3.154

0.4980

2.008

210.88

221.34

3.320

0.4910

2.036

155.5

219.73

3.486

0.4786

2.089

157.65

216.69

2.928

0.6210

1.609

188.19

233.8

3.111

0.6010

1.664

238.00

238.2

3.294

0.5835

1.714

183.72

241.88

3.477

0.5684

1.759

174.62

244.95

3.660

0.555

1.80

180.00

247.5

3.843

0.5442

1.837

183.55

249.74

3.200

0.665

1.503

192.19

265.27

3.400

0.645

1.551

191.34

270.02

3.600

0.627

1.595

207.08

274.07

3.800

0.611

1.636

211.72

277.52

4.000

0.598

1.673

233.66

280.43

4.200

0.586

1.707

200.04

282.90

4.2 Conclusions and Discussions

Obtained results are graphically plotted as follows.

141

Harshal Deshpande 1 , Roshni John2

Internati onal Journal of Engineering Technol ogy Science and Research

IJ ETS R
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 3386
Volume 2, S pecial Issue
September 2015

Fig 4.1 Linear Response of dynamic wind force v/s Db/Dt ratio.

Fig.4.5 Linear Response of Dynamic shear At Base V/S H/Db Ratio

Fig.4.2 Linear Response of Dynamic Wind Force V/S H/Db Ratio

Fig.4.3 Linear Response of Dynamic Moment at Base V/S Db/Dt Ratio

142

Harshal Deshpande 1 , Roshni John2

Internati onal Journal of Engineering Technol ogy Science and Research

IJ ETS R
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 3386
Volume 2, S pecial Issue
September 2015

Fig.4.4 Linear Response of Dynamic shear At Base V/S Db/Dt Ratio

Fig.4.5 Linear Response of Time Period V/S H/Db Ratio

143

Harshal Deshpande 1 , Roshni John2

Internati onal Journal of Engineering Technol ogy Science and Research

IJ ETS R
www.ijetsr.com
ISSN 2394 3386
Volume 2, S pecial Issue
September 2015

Fig.4.5 Linear Response of modal frequency and frequency V/S Db/Dt Ratio
5. CONCLUSIONS
1.
From graphical representation it can be proved that for a self-supported steel stack unlined in
construction with constant shell thickness the change in geometry is directly proportional to the static
and dynamic response of the stack.
2.
Dynamic wind response as base moment, base shear, and fundamental modal frequency is linearly
increasing as the base diameter increases.
3.
Seismic responses such as absolute shear, fundamental time period and corresponding frequency are
linear functions of bottom to top diameter ratio and height to base diameter ratio.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

IS 1893 Part4; 2005, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delh i (2002).
IS 6533 Part 1; 1989, Design and Construction of Steel Chimney, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
(2002).
IS 6533 Part 2; 1989, Design and Construction of Steel Chimney, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
(2005).
J. Kawecki and J. A. Zuranski(2007), Cross -wind vibrations of steel chimneys -A newcase history Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 95. 1166-1175.
M Gaczek and J Kawecki(1989), A new method for prediction of steel chimney response to vortex shedding, in
Int. ConfDynamics of St ructures -Preprints, Karlovy Vary, pp. 191-194.
R Ciesielski, J Kawecki and R Maslowski(1993), Use of mechanical vibrat ion dampers for decreasing dynamic
effects on tower structure, 16th Meeting of IASS Working Group for Masts and Towers, Praha.
R Ciesielski; A Flaga and J Kawecki(1996), Aerodynamic effects on a non -typical steel chimney 120 m h igh.
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 65, pp. 77-86.
R Ciesikielski(1973), Vibrat ion of steel towers due to vortex excitation, in Int. Conf. IASS: Industrial chimneys,
Cracow, pp. 91-94.

144

Harshal Deshpande 1 , Roshni John2