P. 1
Tall Chimneys Circular Section

Tall Chimneys Circular Section

|Views: 398|Likes:
Published by fx007_94

More info:

Published by: fx007_94 on Aug 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 www.elsevier.


Across-wind aerodynamic parameters of tall chimneys with circular S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520
S. Arunachalam a, S.P. Govindaraju b, N. Lakshmanan a, T.V.S.R. Appa Rao


Structural Engineering Research Centre, Madras, 600 113, India b Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560 012, India

Received 3 November 1999; received in revised form 16 May 2000; accepted 16 May 2000

Abstract The prediction of across-wind response of circular cylinders remains a challenging task, despite extensive research efforts. An attempt has been made to correlate the rms lift coefficient due only to vortex shedding, C L,VS both in wind tunnel and full-scale conditions by separating the local rms lift coefficient, C L, into two components, one due to the lateral turbulence and the other due to the vortex shedding. Based on the literature, and also using test results measured by the authors, it is found that the final value of C L,V, as discussed in the paper, show a mean value of 0.089 with a coefficient of variation of 18%, independent of Reynolds number regime. The above value plus 1.66 times the standard deviation gives a value of 0.115 which is in excellent agreement with the value of C L,VS=0.12 recommended for design of chimneys under open terrain conditions, as per the Indian Standard Code of Practice: IS: 4998 Part-2, 1992. Further it is shown that the Griffin universal Strouhal number, G attains a mean value of 0.065 with a coefficient of variation (cov) of 8%, independent of sub-critical and trans-critical Reynolds number regime. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Circular cylinder; Across-wind response; Turbulence; Vortex shedding; Aerodynamic parameters; RMS lift coefficient

1. Introduction Studies on wind induced vibrations of a circular cylinder such as a chimney, have attracted extensive attention by various researchers in the past but the subject still remains one of the classical problems of bluff body aeroelasticity, particularly with respect to vortex induced vibrations. Wind tunnel testing has been used towards promoting the understanding, and assessment of the forces acting on the structure, and its response to vortex induced oscillations. The response prediction depends on many parameters, which describe details of the approach flow, the forces exerted on the structure due to wind action and dynamic sensitivities of the structure. Unfortunately these aspects are not adequately understood [1] and they are influenced by many factors including Reynolds number, Strouhal number, rms lift coefficient, freestream turbulence, surface roughness, aspect ratio of the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-44-235-2122; fax: +91-44-2350508.

structure, etc. Thus, there appears to be no single comprehensive theoretical model developed from first principles to predict the vortex induced response of a circular body such as chimney, as noted by Vickery, Simiu, Melbourne and Kareem among others [1–5,26]. The most important pioneering research contributions towards prediction of crosswind response of isolated reinforced concrete chimneys have been made by Scruton and Vickery and his coworkers [6–10,14]. The Vickery and Basu model is currently regarded as the most well developed model for predicting response of RCC chimneys to vortex shedding [1] and hence has been incorporated in several international codes of practice [11–13]. While the above model is conceptually advanced in addressing the problem of vortex induced motion of the structure using the random vibration approach, the predictions of responses of full-scale chimneys using this method can vary as much as from 25 to 30% [3,8]. Despite this fact, the above method is currently being widely used. The alternative method of prediction of response of full-scale chimneys based on wind tunnel studies on model chimneys has been reported to

0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 0 - 2

and that the parameters describing the lift spectrum. only due to vortex shedding denoted as C L. the rms lift coefficient.4d be unsuccessful by Vickery [9. it is shown that the universal Strouhal number proposed by . C L. diameter of structure effective diameter of tapered chimney equal to average diameter of top 1/3rd height frequency vortex shedding frequency fluctuating lift force per unit length height of cylinder/chimney wake parameter correlation length. in diameters.VS Iu * C L. and the Strouhal number. recently Kareem [4. (fsd/Uz) Roshko universal Strouhal number Bearman universal Strouhal number Griffin universal Strouhal number rms longitudinal velocity local mean wind speed mean wind speed at height of model/chimney height above base reference height relative height turbulence intensity due to u-component kinematic viscosity of air mass density of fluid component of rms lift coefficient only due to lateral turbulence component of rms lift coefficient only due to vortex shedding modified turbulence intensity modified value of C L.15] mainly because of the inability to match the Reynolds number in the wind tunnel with full-scale values. (Ud/n) ¯ Strouhal number. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 503 Nomenclature ¯ Cd Cd CL ¯ Cpb d ¯ d f fs fL H k Lc. of fluctuating lift longitudinal length scale of turbulence for u-component pressure ¯ Reynolds number. A similar approach was reported by Schnanbel and Plate [16] while comparing the wind induced response of a full-scale steel tower with its model tower tested in a wind tunnel.S. evaluated from the local rms lift coefficient C L inclusive of lateral turbulence in free stream. A modified version of local rms lift coefficient.V IV Lc. is shown to have a universal value of about 0.. However. Further. by artificially altering the flow characteristics using tripping wires and hence to predict the response of the full-scale RC chimney from the wind tunnel test results. Arunachalam et al.i Lux p Re S Sz SRO SB G su ¯ U ¯ UH z zref z/H Iu n r C L.24] reported that it is possible to simulate the Reynolds number flow regime as in full-scale conditions. both in wind tunnel and in full-scale conditions. currently it appears not possible to predict the flow parameters such as rms lift coefficient and Strouhal number in full-scale conditions based only on wind tunnel measurements on a smooth cylinder.VS. the bandwidth parameter B. In other words. S are primarily functions of Reynolds number. and is independent of Re number. the authors present a new empirical approach for studying the across-wind forces acting on a circular cylinder/chimney.089 with a cov of 18%.VS. In this paper.ref ¯ mean drag coefficient (fD/1/2rU2d) rms drag coefficient ¯ rms lift coefficient (fL/1/2rU2d) base pressure coefficient cylinder diameter. in a wind tunnel. without resorting to some artificial means of pseudo-simulation of the transcritical flow regime in the wind tunnel.VS turbulence intensity due to v-component reference correlation length=3.turb C L. (fsd/U) ¯ Strouhal number. viz.

are influenced by the Reynolds number. i. mean drag.504 S. fs=S. Since chimneys are exposed to the atmospheric boundary layer conditions. The latter alters the transitional behaviour. Garg and Niemann [21]. . / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 Griffin. Ruscheweyh [36] and Davenport [38]. This is based on analysing data from literature on different circular cylinders tested in boundary layer wind tunnels with proper simulation of atmospheric boundary layer (ABL).e. and S. Cheung and Melbourne [27] and also four fullscale sets of experimental data published by Waldeck [22]. C L..065 with a cov of 8%.21. Based on the pioneering work by Vickery and Basu.27] by simulating height-dependent mean velocity. 3. The presence of large-scale turbulence in the free stream broadens the lift force spectrum. [23]. intensity profiles and the spectrum of the longitudinal velocity component. S. thus producing increased vortex forces and greater organization of vortex shedding resulting in an increased value of C L [1].8. Such a trend can be seen between C L and Iz from full-scale measurements reported by Sanada [23] and which are included in Table 6. viz.turb.(d/Lux)1/2 where Iz=sz/U(z) and other factors as defined earlier. 6.15. It is demonstrated that for the purpose of determining across-wind response. 5. Further. aspect ratio and surface roughness. Iz* ∗ ¯ given by: Iz =Iz. Vickery [2] proposed an empirical relation for the modified turbulence intensity. by various researchers in the boundary layer wind tunnels to study the aerodynamic forces and their effects on a chimney [4. Most of these experiments have been conducted under uniform flow or turbulent boundary layer flow conditions. s2 L SL(f) ¯ variance of lift force {1/2C LdrU2}2 spectrum of lift force It is to be noted that the above across-wind force model includes both contributions from vortex shedding and free stream turbulence.6. Strouhal number. includes the effects of both the parameters. By integrating the circumferential pressure distribution. details on the pressure measurement on a circular cylinder conducted by the authors are also included. When the turbulence intensity is increased it tends to increase the shear layer thickness. to vortex shedding [8] for {d(h)/d(o) 0. For Lux/d 10. The vortex shedding force is caused by the change of surface pressure distribution corresponding to the alternate shedding of vortices. Since small-scale turbulence affects the boundary layer and shear layer.U/d mean wind speed diameter band width parameter f exp fs B p 1 1−f/fs B 2 1.5}. An increase in the free stream turbulence causes a decrease in the narrow-band correlation length [4. Both the scale and intensity of turbulence are important and they influence the values of C L. Vickery and Clark [6]. and using data on two full-scale chimneys and two towers investigated in the field. Vickery and Clark proposed the following empirical formula for predicting the lift force spectrum based on wind tunnel tests [6]: fSL(f)/s2 L where f fs ¯ U d B frequency shedding frequency given by the Strouhal num¯ ber relationship. namely the flow separation points. attains a mean value of about 0.VS the contribution due to only vortex shedding and C L. it is possible to reliably predict the aerodynamic force parameters in fullscale conditions based on wind tunnel tests on a smooth cylinder. independent of Re number. To account for the combined effect of intensity and scale of turbulence. which is directly related to the conventional Strouhal number.29]. where Lux represents the longitudinal turbulence length scale. It is well established that the basic aerodynamic parameters. The present study makes use of the boundary layer wind tunnel data on circular cylinders published by Kareem et al. Arunachalam et al.9. They also vary depending on the free stream turbulence. the effects of large-scale turbulence are assumed to be as per quasi-steady theory. 4. Earlier studies For evaluating the vortex-induced response of an isolated circular cylinder (corresponding to a tall chimney).18.25]. the contribution due to lateral turbulence only. and the local rms lift coefficient. some of them with grid generated low turbulence. the parameter C L. [4]. the following expression is used for computing across wind response of chimneys with little or no taper. base pressure coefficient and consequently the pressure distribution. the quasi-steady assumption becomes less valid particularly for Lux/d 1. C L. tests have been conducted in the recent past two decades. ‘S’. 2. Sanada et al. as reported by several investigators [1. Some of the effects of free stream turbulence on flow parameters as reported by several investigators are as follows: 2. several investigations have been reported in the literature [17–20]. ‘G’.

However. while the vortex shedding is a narrow banded signal. Arunachalam et al. Thus C L and S are the only flow parameters required to be determined. Time histories of pressure coefficients at different pressure taps along the circumference are obtained and by resolving them into lift and drag directions (the time histories of pressures and hence using statistics). Since the lateral component of turbulence can be treated as wide banded and random in nature. 1992 [13] on chimneys of circular cross-section for computing acrosswind response due to vortex shedding. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 505 1/2 ¯ ¯ gCLdj(h) rd2 l p 2 2 8p S me 2(l+2) av ˆ h state that it is still possible to reliably make use of the wind tunnel results for predicting corresponding values of C L and S in full-scale conditions. given by the Strouhal number relationship. With regard to the cross wind response of a chimney. Such a value of local rms lift coefficient. It is stated in the literature that since these two parameters are significantly dependent on Reynolds number (besides aspect ratio and surface roughness). investigated by Kessler [33] and as shown in Fig.k1) 3. corresponding to a given value ¯ ¯ of (fsd/UH).S. It can be seen that C L. such as aspect ratio. C L and the Strouhal number. the vortex shedding mechanism and buffeting due to lateral turbulence are the primary causes. S and r are the flow parameters involved and all other parameters are related to geometric and dynamic properties of the structure. damping etc. C L has contributions both from lateral component of turbulence in oncoming flow and from vortex shedding phenomenon. h/d average diameter of top third mean diameter at the bottom chimney height rms lift coefficient (inclusive of both due to lateral turbulence and vortex shedding) Strouhal number mode shape ordinate at height h m(z)j2(z)dz/ j2(z)dz mass/unit length at height z air density structural damping as a fraction of critical correlation length in multiples of diameter aerodynamic damping coefficient 1−k −1 2 1 1. it is suggested that the total variance of the lift force can be com- The above equation is recommended in the Indian Standard Code of Practice. The local rms lift coefficient. and is extending only for a finite region of frequencies with central frequency equal to fs. fs. which are the characteristics of the approach flow.k1) g B k1 ¯ U ¯ Uc f0 normalized peak tip deflection due to vortex shedding ¯ aspect ratio. Thus the spectrum of lift force can be treated as consisting of: (a) the spectrum part due to the effect of the lateral component of turbulence (b) the spectrum part due to only vortex shedding. prediction/extrapolation of values C L and S from wind tunnel tests to prototype conditions is very difficult and hence presently no method appears to be available for use. values of local rms drag and local rms lift coefficients are evaluated. IS: 4998 Part 2. Proposed approach 1 2 j (z)dz bs−kard 2/me h 0 1/2 where ˆ av l ¯ d d(o) h CL S j(h) me m(z) r bs l ka f(B. S are important parameters describing the vortex induced response process.5 1 k 1 exp 0. due to lateral turbulence only. 2. Direct measurements of C L and S are generally made both in wind tunnel and full-scale experiments through rings of pressure taps at various positions along the height. mode shape. as shown in subsequent sections. This part can be viewed as a ‘running vehicle’ occupying some position on the spectrum part. The contribution due to lateral turbulence is spread over a wide range of frequencies and is always present. f(B. the authors would like to .5 √B B peak factor ( 4) a spectral bandwidth ¯ ¯ U/Uc mean wind speed at z=5/6 height ¯ f0d/S fundamental frequency The local flow around an isolated circular chimney/cylinder (and its along wind response to wind action) at any given height mainly depends upon the mean velocity and the turbulent intensity and scale at that height. Such a trend is also seen to be supported by full-scale measurements of spectra of pressures on a 230 m tall reinforced concrete chimney. 1 for two different wind speed cases. This is schematically shown in Fig. whereas the contribution due to vortex shedding varies depending on the vortex shedding frequency.

(1) have been evaluated from different wind tunnel and full-scale test data on circular cylinders/chimneys published in the literature. as discussed later.68 [31]. (2) sL where sL Iv ¯ 1/2rU2d.Iv or Fig.68Iu. C L.V with a mean value of 0.506 S. 1. correlation length. (1) is exact [39].. Hence use of Eq. it is seen that the value of C L. puted as the sum of the squares of these two components and given by: (C L)2 (C where (C L. 2.VS values. both in wind tunnel and in full-scale conditions.turb L. This is further analogous to summing up the squares of rms values of broad-banded background component and narrow-banded resonant component to get the total variance of along-wind response of a tower-like structure of any cross-section. (1) for separating the local rms lift coefficient into two components due to lateral turbulence and vortex shedding is considered valid. Vickery [6] and full-scale studies conducted by Waldeck [22].turb)2=area under that part of the spectrum contributed only by the lateral component of turbulence (C L.i Lc.ref)n (6) . As a consequence of variations in the above parameters. These include the wind tunnel experiments reported by Kareem [4]. based on reference dynamic pressure at the model height. Correction factor for C where Lc. corresponding to any given test case correlation length expressed in multiples of diameter corresponding to the reference case of L.CD. Arunachalam et al. As far as the contribution to the lift force spectrum by the lateral component of turbulence is concerned.089. C L as used L. The experimental conditions in each case differ from one another with respect to mean velocity and turbulence profiles.ref correlation length expressed in multiples of diameter. Sanada [23] and Ruscheweyh and Davenport [38].VS )2 (1) where C D is the fluctuating rms drag coefficient The values of C L.(C L.VS in each case with its respective correlation length. and we get C or C L. the authors have found that by correcting the values of C L. Melbourne [27].VS)2=area under that part of the spectrum contributed only by vortex shedding as a consequence of shape of the cylinder For any two random signals.CD 0. Thus we can write: ¯ ¯ sL 1/2rU2d. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 in this paper is the value of C L.turb ) (3) standard deviation of fluctuating lift force per unit length v-component turbulence intensity The ratio between Iu and Iv can be approximately assumed as 0.34C (4) D (5) Fig. as these values have been found to give uniform values for modified C L. Schematic diagram showing contributions due to lateral turbulence and vortex shedding to the total force spectrum. as stated earlier. it is reasonable to assume quasi-steady aerodynamics [1– 3].turb )2 (C L. aspect ratio. However. which are uncorrelated Eq.turb ¯ 0. Garg and Niemann [21]. Normalized power spectrum of pressure (from full-scale study by Kessler on 230 m tall chimney).VS is not universally constant but it depends on individual test conditions. The loads due the to lateral component of turbulence and that due to vortex shedding are uncorrelated [3]. The local rms lift coefficient. through the following equation.VS using Eq.i/Lc. it is possible to obtain a modified parameter. This value is found to be independent of the Reynolds number regime.VS (Lc. Reynolds number etc.

4d/Lc. The exactness of the above value 0. independent of the Reynolds number regime.6d based on the available literature [4.85 for a smooth terrain with a=0.4d. Since the values of local rms lift coefficient. (except very close to tip and bottom of the cylinder) the value of C L. z/H. Correlations of pressure fluctuations.i is of relatively smaller value. spectra of along-wind and acrosswind forces and variations of rms lift coefficients and Strouhal number with model height have been reported.i will be relatively higher when it is placed in a smooth terrain [4]. shown as (A) and (B) respectively in Fig. have been studied by Kareem et al.4d is taken as the value for the reference correlation length.i based on tests by Howell et al. However. Hence if one were to derive C L. The validation of this observation is discussed in the next section. the computed values of C L. at any height of the cylinder. if Lc. In the case of a given experiment with the value of correlation length. Thus it is hypothesized that when circular cylinders are exposed to wind under atmospheric boundary layer flow conditions. and Strouhal number are generally reported as a variation of relative height. for a given model at a given height. the value of Lc.8d at z/H=0. The reported low value of correlation length of one diameter was attributed to the effects of taper. when the model is located in a rougher terrain and the value of Lc. A similar trend of variation of Lc. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 507 n open terrain test case reported by Kareem [4]. is shown to attain a mean value of about 0.VS denoted as C L. [4] and Garg et al. Arunachalam et al.7d. Many of the investigators referred have given the correlation lengths and these have been used.35 is reported as 1. 4.V.1d at z/H=0.i/Lc. [4]. The salient features of the test results for the two models corresponding to the open terrain are suitably deduced and are given in Table 1.ref). Lc.V as discussed above can be expected to approach a mean value of about 0.ref=3.186.i will be smaller.089 is to be multiplied by a correction factor of (3. Hence.29].VT. The above value of 0. n=1) is found to yield values of C L. On the other hand. where H Fig. Validation of the hypothesis Measurements of pressure and force fluctuations on isolated cylinders of finite height (l1=10 and l2=13. finite aspect ratio and also to the presence of shear flow [32]. then one might obtain a broad band lift force spectrum with reduced peak.25 to 3.089.089 with a coefficient of 18% and this will be independent of Reynolds number.i implies that the eddies are highly correlated and hence the spectrum of lift force based on pressure measurements at that level would indicate a narrow band vortex shedding with a higher peak.VS. This will also account for the effect of different aspect ratios.S. [29]. (i. 3.54 to 2. The reported values of Lc. [21]. C L.i/Lc.i with height has been reported by Kareem et al.29]. The resulting modified values of C L. this has been taken as 1. C L.5 and to 4. the exact value of n requires further examination. for example from a force balance measurement.089 can however be improved when additional data become available.V from all the wind tunnel and full-scale data. Lc.i is smaller and vice versa as can be seen from Table 1.75×104).VS from C L. At a given height on a cylinder. It may also be noted that between two terrains.VS as above. 3. The average value of Lc. However.VS will be more when Lc.ref) for respective correlation lengths. these additional factors are also to be considered. The tests were conducted in the sub-critical Reynolds number range (Re=2.4d at z/H=0. a larger value of Lc. Schematic diagram showing relative effect of high and low correlation lengths on total variance of lift force spectrum. it may be inferred that with the same mean velocity at the given height in both cases discussed above. vary from approximately 1. are multiplied by a correction factor (Lc. (Lc.i is very dependent on the location of the reference point and the direction in which the separation distance is taken [4. the contribution to C L.V which are close to 0.i for a rougher terrain with a=0. From the general log–log plot of the lift force spectrum with fSL(f) versus f. either in a wind tunnel or at full-scale. In the literature it is emphasized that for a cylinder.089 will be valid when the reference correlation length is about 3.i the value of 0. larger the region of vortex shedding and hence a higher value will be obtained for the ratio of overall lift coefficient.VT to local lift coefficient C L.e.33) in two different simulated atmospheric boundary layers.4d) exponent value taken as unity in this analysis Within the range of test data analysed a linear variation of (Lc. In a turbulent flow. The corresponding data for rougher terrain are given in Table 2.i) to obtain corresponding C L. the correlation length.089 with a coefficient of variation (cov) of about 18%. A correlation length of one diameter has been suggested by Vickery. the presence of high turbulence reduces the correlation of the vortices and the direction of separation is of less importance. A correlation length of 3. .21.

54 0.184 0.turb C L C L.71 4.078 0.170 0.19 4.829 4. The final values of modified C L. the above wind tunnel data have been included even though the cylinder had been tested in a horizontal position.105 0. The repotted values of correlation lengths are equal to 3.17 4.121 0.22 0.60 4.233 0. the values of C L and S based on wind tunnel results published by Cheung and Melbourne [27] measured on a horizontal cylinder (l=4.073 0.196 0.V S 1 BL1-30 (l=10. Further.074 0.116 0.54 0. Since it is hypothesized that at any given height Eq.153 0.124 0.181 0.145 0.530 0.805 0.185 0.191 is the height of the cylinder/chimney.258 0. (5).107 0.141 0.22 0.706 0.483 0.5) have also been included in the present study and are shown in Table 4. values of C L.V S HJN (l=8.203 0.193 0.135 0.180 0.17 13.102 0.35 SI.279 0.091 0.VS C L.500 4.57) 1 2 3 4 0.082 0.180 0.79 4.4d and 2.079 0.258 0. these values are listed here against relative heights.530 0.84 0.252 0. The vortex induced aerodynamic forces acting on a vertical tapered cylinder and its response in simulated atmospheric boundary layer conditions were reported by Vickery and Clark [6].102 0. and their correlation and variation of C L and S with height.08 4. denoted as C L.069 0.184 0. No.111 0.54 0.211 0.197 0.126 0.06 4.087 0.177 0. no.120 0.079 0.167 0.097 0.132 0. no.141 0.22 0.84 0.165 0.044 0. Based on a boundary layer wind tunnel investigation on fluctuating aerodynamic forces on a circular cylinder with an aspect ratio of 8.108 0. [4]. Open terrain: a=0.070 0.turb is worked out for each relative height.612 0.075 0.135 .074 0.215 0. (z/H) z/zref ¯ U(z/H) (m/s) 10. for the mean velocity profiles.706 0.125 0.88 12.VS is now computed using the suggested Eq.150 0. a.086 0.254 0.165 0.070 0.179 0.221 0.044 0.192 0.088 0.5.135 0.22 0.182 0.155 0.097 0.198 0. The test data are shown in Table 3 with relevant deduced values and are used in the present study.VS denoted as C L.047 0.097 0.630 0.084 0.185 0.044 0.158 0. Open terrain: a=0. Test case (z/H) z/zref ¯ U(z/H) (m/s) 3.706 0.698 4.176 0.33) 0.706 0.2 0.54 0.92 5.044 0.073 0. (1).195 0.16 SI.706 0.205 0.turb C L C L.54 0. Rough terrain: a=0.082 0.113 0.141 0. using Eq.turb C L C L.137 0. Test case (z/H) z/zref ¯ U(z/H) (m/s) 2. [4].269 0.104 0.630 0. Garg and Niemann [21] presented variation of mean and fluctuating components of pressure.130 0.086 0.090 0. C D have been directly reported. The value of C L.89 I(z/H) C L.134 0.367 0.33) 0.84 0. Since values of fluctuating drag coefficient.turb have been computed based on quasi-steady aerodynamics.103 0.22 0. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 Table 1 Values of different parameters deduced from wind tunnel results after Kareem et al.180 0.044 0.16 Test case SI.097 0. (4).079 0.2d respectively. the lift coefficient part corresponding to lateral turbulence component only. The value of the power-law component.84 0.02 13.106 0.121 0. for smooth and rough terrain conditions and these correspond to only average values.22 0.42 3.1145 0. Arunachalam et al.174 Table 2 Values of different parameters deduced from wind tunnel results after Kareem et al.208 0.127 0.405 0.VS C L. The wind tunnel data corresponding to turbulence intensity levels between 4 and 9% and corresponding to Reynolds number range between 8×104 and 4×105 are considered in this analysis.54 0.VS C L.197 0.113 0.508 S. Using Eq.128 0.84 0.218 0.64 I(z/H) C L.V S 1 BL1-30 (l=10) 2 BL1-40 (l=13.77 3.085 0.0) 2 BL1-40 (l=13. based on Table 3 Values of different parameters deduced from wind tunnel results after Garg and Niemann [21].84 0.118 0.133 0. (1) holds good.405 0.706 0.242 0.142 0.185 0.102 0.165 0.086 0.079 0.V are given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.079 0.106 0.134 0.405 0.147 0.898 4.140 0.106 0.200 0.06 I(z/H) C L.249 0. drag and lift.

0694 0.165 0.086 0.183 0.091 0.044 0.VS C L.083 0.56 6.104 0.091 C D C L.075 0. C L with height.444 0.157 0. The range of Re number in their study is between 2×104 and 7×104 (i.068 0.082 0.203 0.85 6.186 0.129 0.186 0. which corresponds to a rough terrain category.686 0.171 0.190 0.0177 0.102 0.12 0.104 0.133 0.179 0.e.233 0.076 0.750 0.51 5.078 0.096 0.085 0.417 0.S. Based on detailed pressure measurements on a rigid model. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 509 Table 4 Values of different parameters deduced from wind tunnel results after Cheung and Melbourne [27].102 0.406 0.110 0.610 0.188 0.V 0.084 0.105 0.088 0. sub-critical flow).064 C L.035 0.044 0. The deduced values of C L included in Table 6 are based Table 5 Values of different parameters deduced from wind tunnel results after Vickery and Clark [6].0496 0.813 0. as shown in Table 5.068 0.10 with an average value of 0.091 0.030 0. a=0.706.231 0.635 0.278 0.105 0.093 0.74 4.02 6.125 0.333 0.13 6.170 0.166 0.087 0.218 0.120 0.082 0.047 0.204 0.100 0.23 5. U and Re are taken and are given in Table 6.099 0.199 0.737 0.063 0. The aspect ratio of the model based on average diameter of the top 1/3rd height of chimney is 25. Sanada et al.095 0.838 ¯ U(z/H)(m/s) I(z/H) 4.185 0.037 0.091 0.201 0.071 0.093 0.110 0.35 6.212 0.088.068 0.158 0.356 0.092 0.528 0.177 0.37 Test case BJV (l=25.389 0.199 0.102 0.093 0.097 0. Vickery et al.VS C L.195 0.235 0.361 0.77 5.021 0.159 0.071 0.762 0.031 0.099 0.136 0.058 0.46 6.24 6.096 0.667 0.12 0.144 0. no.131 0.041 0.94 7.198 0.044 0.068 0.086 0.66 6.778 0.556 0.074 0.37 5.044 0.508 0.141 0.279 0.11 0.432 0.18 0.306 0.107 0.086 .639 0.227 0. no.29 7. These data are also included in the present study as shown in Table 5.068 0.0541 0.turb C L C L.160 0.052 0.37.104 0.17 0.559 0.081 0.105 0.080 0.224 0.305 0.660 0.075 0.16 0.472 0.067 0.219 0.189 0.21 7.068 0.194 0.500 0.190 0.094 0.163 0.192 0.0126 0.056 0.089 0. have reported the variations of shedding frequency.V can be seen to lie in the region of 0. Rough terrain a=0.V 0.094 0.068 0.191 0.083 0.147 0.198 0.330 0.711 0.583 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Re 8E04 1E05 2E05 3E05 4E05 8E04 1E05 2E05 3E05 4E05 8E04 1E05 2E05 3E05 4E05 I 0.168 0.048 0.088 0.110 0.069 0.211 0. The resulting values of C L.861 0.64 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 z/H 0.206 0.194 0.110 0.0190 0.07– 0.084 0.0119 0.7.12 7.102 0.806 0.080 0.205 0.091 0.044 0.204 0. pertaining to ¯ S.483 0.787 0.16 (assumed) Test case WHM SI.0646 0.078 0.533 0.611 0.233 0.turb C L C L.254 0. the measured data at a height of 140 m (z/H=0.097 0.223 0.146 0.082 0.584 0.196 0.147 0.102 0.083 0.216 0.204 0.052 0.722 0.103 0.063 0.217 0. fs and of local rms lift coefficient.159 0.076 0.889 0.090 0.21 0.140 0.07 5.112 0.694 0.38 0.188 0.07 0.917 z(m) 0. [23] published details of full-scale measurements on wind forces on a 200 m tall reinforced concrete chimney and their data were discussed by Vickery [8]. C L.088 0.178 0.015 0.0105 0.044 0.084 0.093 0.833 0.161 0.174 0.7) SI.119 Figure 2 of their paper is deduced equal to 0.03 7.186 0.90 6.087 0.056 0.068 0.119 0.209 0.0903 0.152 0.015 0. l=13.143 0.14 0.094 0.110 0.063 0.457 0.091 0.184 0.044 0.093 0.167 0.5). Arunachalam et al.084 0.069 0.0102 0.381 0.089 0.095 0.76 6.0496 0.91 5. From these two references.

collected at a height of 252 m. Open terrain: a=0.28 m using the expression.84 by Waldeck is less than around 8% which is very similar that obtained in the above wind tunnel case.087 0. the value of C L. The turbulence intensity level measured at the level of z/H=0.106 0. rms lift coefficient and Strouhal number. The relevant experimental data on mean velocity.074 . powerlaw exponent a 0. which is referenced to 1/2rU2 .07 0. the authors propose that it is reasonable to assume that for a smooth circular cylinder.103 0.126 0.04 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ¯ U(z/H) (m/s) 26.067 0. For the purpose of computing C L.16.097 0.021 0.089. no.84. z/H=0.107 0. Hence. g=23) for different test runs are included in Table 7.051 0.10 0.510 S. Arunachalam et al. (z=78.06 0.028 0.V 0.05 C L.021 0. the value of mean drag coefficient is assumed equal to 0. Since in the present method.127 0. a=0. The measurement level was at a relative height of z/H=0.i has been assumed to be equal to 3.057 0.07–0.030 0. (as the corresponding value is not available in Waldeck’s paper). its value is indirectly estimated.089 0. rms lift coefficient due to lateral turbulence and due to vortex shedding).7 I(z/H) 0. and rms level lift coefficient. the value of C L. the reported values given in their paper. no.020 0. which is equal to 0.0 7.089. It may be noted that for all the wind tunnel and full-scale data considered here.VS =C L.042 0.013 0.134 0.087 0. which are referenced to ¯Z 1/2rU2 .16. z/H=0. l=13. As there is no explicit mention of the value of a in their paper.017 0. Open terrain . The power law exponent is assumed to be equal to 0.059 0. l=23.mean=0.030 0.1 20.e.080 0. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 Table 6 Values of different parameters deduced from full-scale experiments after Sanada [23].V in the present analysis.turb C L C L.067 0. turbulence intensity.079 0.79 25.025 0.077 0.turb is deduced from the rms lift ¯H coefficient. Hence.7 21. Germany was investigated by Ruscheweyh [36].706 by Sanada et al.V will be the same.51 16.042 ¯ on dynamic pressure corresponding to UH.082 0.057 0.064 0.VS =C L.V 0.1 17.4d for the above two full-scale studies.i=3.9 18.24 24. Lc.8 m) and the values of Re number.84.047 0.1 SI.087 0.08 0.045 0. Based on the average value of turbulence intensity from above 20 records.05 and three points are above 0. turbulent intensity.057 0. it is reasonable to assume Lc. This implies that the correction factor to be applied for correlation factor becomes unity and values of C L. (inclusive of both components due to lateral turbulence and vortex shedding). since its value is not available in Sanada’s paper [23].5 SI. the mean value of roughness length is obtained as z0.11.4d for the full-scale data considered here.025 0.706.048 C L.89 23.V for both these cases are included in Tables 6 and 7. The wind tunnel test data corresponding to a 30 high model in smooth terrain tested by Kareem and included as reference case in this study can be treated similar to the above full-scale tests in terms of terrain features.076 0. (z/H=0.177.16 (assumed).V as discussed above will exhibit a mean value of about 0. the correlation length. Iz 1/ln(z/z0) (7) Table 7 Values of different parameters deduced from full-scale experiments after Waldeck [22].51 16.05 0.. are multiplied by (z/H)2α where a is the powerlaw coefficient of mean velocity profile.028 0.034 0.V lies in the range of 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ¯ U(z/H) (m/s) 13.88 I(z/H) 0.2 16. A similar full-scale experiment on a 300 m tall chimney in an open terrain condition was reported by Waldeck [22]. C L were given in their paper for 20 records and are shown in Table 8. Full-scale wind pressure measurements on the television tower.082 0. In both these full-scale measurements.119 0. and turbulence intensity level.03 0.VS and C L. The computed values of C L. Only four points out of the total 93 data points are around 0.1 22.092 0.turb C L C L.16.11 with an average value of 0.07 0.077 0. and at z/H=0.064 0. It may be noted that the value of C L given in the Table 7 corresponds to the total rms lift coefficient (i. Hamburg.62 based on values reported by Sanada et al. the values of C L.29.

170 0.167 0. Several investigations have been made of this universal non-dimensional number.211 0.088 0. It can be noted that the value of the mean plus 1.19 (deduced). of a cylinder [2–4]. Since the value of correction factor for correlation length in full-scale studies can be taken as unity as discussed before.088 0.096log10(z0) 0. are shown in Fig.082 0. 5.54 8. S=fd/U. suburban terrains.192 0.101 0.088 0.turb C L.V would be equal to 0.V versus [Re.V (=mean+1. which is in excellent agreement with the value of 0. z/H=0.162 C L C L. The dimension of the body.081 which is generally an accepted procedure [37]. a 0.098 0.068 0.130 0.053 0.108 0.089 (3.115 and 0.063 0.e. For cases.056 0. The wind tunnel data reported by Kareem [4].V plotted against [Re.110 0. Arunachalam et al.e.089.5 9. It is easily seen that the inclusion of the factor (z/H) in the abscissa is only to stretch the data points and to achieve a better presentation of the data. which would be about 22% higher than its counterpart value in open terrain conditions.116 0. 4.121 0.23 9.096 0. a=0.57 9. Even though there is considerable variation in the value of S as stated above.27 in full-scale studies.5d)=0.66*standard deviation) would be equal to 0.109 0. if S is viewed in terms of the concept of a universal Strouhal number. surface roughness value.V is independent of Re number regime and it attains a mean value of about 0.175 0.051 0.094 0. (×10 4) 8.116 0.161 0.089 (cov=18%) both in tunnel and full-scale tests. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Re no.207 0.109 0.078 0.155 0.167 0.19. no.42 6.081 0. The average of all the 93 values is equal to 0.053 0.153 0.5d may be considered reasonable.75 8. the authors suggest that a value of Lc. (f=vortex shedding fre¯ quency.057 0.099 0.V and C L. Using the following relationship proposed by Counihan.30 6.092 0. .0 9. referenced to dynamic pressure at the height of the tower.67 6.0 11. the values of C L.185 0.215 in the wind tunnel and between 0.163 0.117 0.6 12.097 0.096 0.17 and 0.069 0.089 with a standard deviation of 0.105 0. as more and more data become available.S. and aspect ratio.068 0.68 10.055 0. The accuracy of this value can however be improved.103 0. l.055 0.12 for C L.4d/2.104 0.104 0.088 0. open terrain conditions as per the Indian Code of Practice [13]. show a value of Strouhal number varying between 0.(z/H)].050 0. d=diameter of the cylinder and U=undisturbed upstream velocity) is one of the primary parameters describing the vortex frequency in the wake region of a cylinder.115.VS have been computed using procedure described earlier.70 8.151 0.I=2. which is ¯ included in the conventional Strouhal number. It can be clearly seen from Table 8 that these values are close to about 0. the authors propose that these values could be reduced to a near constant value. which includes vortex shedding frequency. The final results of C L. d.107 0. Garg and Niemann [21].061 0.064 0.063 0.075 0.194 0. Cheung and Melbourne [27] and Vickery [6] and the full-scale data published by Sanada [23] and Waldeck [22] which are considered for analysis in this paper.071 0.121.turb and C L.01573.058 0.VS are equal.91 I(z/H) 0.V recommended for design in category-2.66 times the standard deviation is equal to 0.30 8.(z/H)] and this removes bunching of points at certain Re values.111 0.192 0.9 10.050 0. It depends on Reynolds number.086 0.064 0.208 0. where chimneys are likely to be located in category-3 i. i.90 10.24 (8) The value of a is worked out to be equal to 0.107 0. Comparison of Strouhal number value between wind tunnel and full-scale test results ¯ The Strouhal number.098 0.054 0.166 0.099 0.097 0.147.194 0.053 0.V 0.115 0.47 10. Thus after computing values of rms lift coefficient.51 9.016{log10(z0)}2 0.29 SI.6 10. Thus it is shown that the value of C L.085 0. the values of C L.176 0. S=fd/U. Thus the mean value of C L. and the design value of C L. A plot has been drawn between C L. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 511 Table 8 Values of different parameters deduced from full-scale experiments after Ruscheweyh [36].

RUSCH and FS. Bearman’s number was the most uniform Strouhal number. Roshko’s number. is given by: ¯ ¯ Ub kU (1 Cpb)1/2∗U . and Griffin’s number. SRO: Roshko demonstrated that the wake Strouhal number can be defined in terms of wake width. BJV. (b) Comparison between WT and FS results AK.01573. sig=0. Data mean=0. when proper scaling for reference length and velocity is used. also is independent of Re range. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 Fig. d . [28].512 S. SRO: ¯ fs. BJV. he defined the following universal Strouhal number. besides the vortex shedding frequency [30]. and velo¯ city at the point of separation Ub. The concept of a universal Strouhal number is that same size vortex street may be expected to originate from different bluff bodies. universal Strouhal numbers which include the dimensions of vortex streets of cylinders in uniform flow.089. (9) where k is a wake parameter and can be obtained . A brief description of these three universal Strouhal numbers is given below: 1. Arunachalam et al. 5899 mean=0.089. RUSCH and FS. Thus. HJN. HJN. He reported that for a cylinder with various roughness surfaces over a wide range of Reynolds number 5×10 4 Re 107. if data corresponding to about 5×105 to 2×106 are neg- lected.d SRO ¯ Ub ¯ The relation between Ub and U . G. (a) Comparison between WT and FS results AK. Data. WHM. sig=0. were studied by Roshko et al.01573. 4. is not related to the vortex street. The effect of surface roughness on the universal Strouhal number has been recently reported by Adachi [30]. In the literature.

Griffin’s universal Strouhal number. their influences on Strouhal number. [41] have reported wind tunnel results on the aerodynamic disturbance caused by the free ends of a circular cylinder held horizontally and immersed in a low turbulence ( 0. It is clearly seen. in the present study it is found that wind tunnel data by Kareem. (11) are equal to about 0. While the value of vz Strouhal number. are reported only for limited levels and are included in Table 9. 2×104 Re 7×104. the value slightly increases to 0. the values of G for heights above the mid height of the model have values closer to 0. [40]. Re*=100–107. can be indirectly accounted for through the Griffin universal Strouhal number. Similarly full-scale data on a 265 m tall Mt.4×104. Thus. uniform flow.065 even though the value of Strouhal number from this test is relatively high and equal to 0. in uniform flow with a turbulence level of 10%. ¯ d CD ¯ pb d C where d is the wake-width.055 and 0. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 513 using Bernoullis equation. is available for a greater number of z/H values in the test data reported in [4. Cpb. d(z)/d(zref). S*CD*. The resulting modified values of G lie in the range between 0. and base pressure coefficient.21] data on ¯ base pressure coefficient. Fox et al.005 for a wide range of Re numbers. The relevant data pertaining to an isolated cylinder are taken from their paper and are included in Table 9. Roshko also suggested the following relation between mean drag coefficient. In particular.044 to 0. a taper correction factor. This is in good agreement with test observations reported by Adachi [30]. It is clear that the deduced value of G is close to 0. independent of the Reynolds number. Using the above data. S. the values of G are computed at locations of y/d=15 and 20. G. This can also be expressed as [30]: ¯ ¯ SB 1/k. (where y is the distance from the free end. Niemann and Vickery clearly indicate that even when cylinders are tested in wind tunnels with proper simulation of atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) (which is a more realistic case for full-scale chimneys). Recently. has been established for smooth cylinders tested in wind tunnels or for cylinders with various surface roughness values as reported by Adachi only under uniform flow conditions. the universal Strouhal number proposed by Roshko takes the form: ¯ ¯ SRO (S/k)·(CD/( Cpb)) 2. d is the diameter of the cylinder) and these are included in Table 9.074. the computed value of G varied from 0. The universality of Griffin Strouhal number. can be obtained.CD/k 3 G (11) In the present study. it may be reasonably assumed that all the wind tunnel results discussed above. where the model has uniform diameter throughout its height.S. G using Eq. Thus. Since the chimney model has a linear taper throughout the height. intensity and scale of turbulence at a given height may vary between individual tests. Cpb.(d /d) ¯ Re∗ Ud /v Re k. Griffin demonstrated that the product of the wake Strouhal number and wake drag coefficient. where ¯ S ∗ fsd /U (S/k). rms lift and rms drag and Strouhal number of vortex shedding have been measured corresponding to a Reynolds number of Re=4.6. [23] are included in Table 10. G. where d(zref) is the diameter of the model at the 2/3rd reference height of the model. the Griffin universal Strouhal number is selected for comparing wind tunnel and full-scale data. Arunachalam et al. G. G.07 for the case of rougher terrain tested by Kareem. In the case of test results reported by Vickery. However.069 and it is in good agreement with the G value obtained from other experiments discussed earlier. the universality of Griffin Strouhal number.2%) steady. that the computed values of Griffin number.073±0. is a constant with a value of 0. Isa reported by Cheung and Melbourne [27. The values of G computed using these data also suggest a mean value of G=0. while the extent of mean velocity. Gu et al. as well as fluctuating pressures in some cases.065.(h/l).35] and on a 200 m tall concrete chimney investigated by Sanada et al. Bearman’s Universal number: SB The wake Strouhal number. The Strouhal number S.065. with a cov of 7%. according to Bearman is ¯ given by: SB=fsh/Ub where h refers to lateral spacing of vortices.263. 3. It can be noted that the values of G are found to be equal to 0.072. give a mean value of G=0.(d /d) and ∗ ¯ S ∗CD S. at any given height z is nDz used for computation of G (Sz= ). Mean and fluctuating surface pressures. have reported time averaged pressures on two cylinders in various arrangements.065 . local mean pressure drag.065. ¯ ¯ CD. for the data reported by Kareem (open terrain) and by Niemann. was applied as a multiplying fac- tor. Since the top 50 or 60% of the height of the chimney is generally considered to contribute to the vortex shedding phenomenon. However.UN/U (10) where l is the longitudinal spacing of vortices of ¯ opposite sign and UN is the velocity of the centres of the vortices relative to the body.

714 0.066 0.133 1.333 0.667 0.503 1.304 1.245 1.161 0..37 1. [41] Present study 0.112 0.138 0.85 0.064 0. [40] Fox et al.0 0.81 0.82 1.069 0.706 0.131 0.417 0.514 Table 9 Values of Griffin universal Strouhal number deduced from various wind tunnel experiments (z/H) I(z/H) ¯ Cpb SH Sz ¯ k=√1−Cpb ¯ CD ¯ Correction for Taper (dz/dzref) G=Sz.79 1.352 1.072 0.833 0.990 0.136 0.171 0. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 5.37 1. 3.657 0.90 0.26 0.905 0.275 1.263 0.15 1. 6.917 0.100 0.CD/k 3 Re×104 SI.057 0.133 1.80 1.209 1.460 1.11 6.781 0.170 0.002 0.39 2.197 0.876 0.309 1.867 0.142 0.361 0.77 1.088 0.152 0.389 0.25 1. 0.102 0.16 0.140 0.366 1. no.186 0.952 0.157 0. Arunachalam et al.500 1 2.876 0.876 0.197 0.75 1.181 0.070 0.071 0.95 0.4 19.373 1.067 2.060 0.064 0.58 0.3 1.583 0.287 1.146 0.5 .72 0.494 0.829 0. 4.335 1.190 0.163 0.100 0.914 0.81 1.002 0.069 0.311 1.925 0.24 0.377 1.26 1.383 1.146 0.58 Gu et al.145 0.075 1.70 0. 7.059 0.750 0.063 0.37 1.069 0.952 0.225 1.775 – – – – 0.706 0.190 0.895 0. Kareem BLI-30 [4] Kareem BL2-30 [4] Niemann [21] Vickery [6] S.52 65.166 0.55 1.066 0.203 0.100 0.181 – – – 1..61 1.69 1.067 0.895 0.886 0.470 1.00 4.063 0.079 0.876 0.895 0.750 0.80 1.857 0.129 0.4 4.177 0.933 0. Investigator (BLWT experiments) 0.135 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.500 0.062 0.

G can be analysed to yield a mean value of 0.064 0. CD and S are 0. The wind tunnel and full-scale test data included in Tables 9 and 10 further show that the wake parameter.048 - 0.706 0. Variation of wake parameter.86 0. conducted by Ruscheweyh [36] and discussed earlier in Section 4.50 0.27] Sanada et al. (9) is linearly related to the freestream turbulence intensity. Pressure measurement test on a circular cylinder 6.385 1.61 0.77 at z=30 m.83 0. [23] Sanada et al. [23] Erbacher and Plate [34] Erbacher and Plate [34] Davenport [38] Ruscheweyh [36] (z/H) I(z/H) ¯ Cpb ¯ k=√1−Cpb ¯ CD Sz ¯ G=Sz. This stateof-the-art boundary layer wind tunnel is an open circuit and a blower type wind tunnel.5 m(W)×1. independent of Re number.37 0.25 respectively. even for the transcritical range.652 0. Thus the authors propose that the Griffin Strouhal number.44 1.269 1. Boundary layer wind tunnel (BLWT) facility Pressure measurements on a circular cylinder under simulated open terrain conditions were carried out using the boundary layer wind tunnel available at the Structural Engineering Research Centre.364 1. 2.S. Similarly based on the full-scale investigation of wind pressures on the television tower.86 0.23 0. where Re is of the order of 0.70 0. SD=0.487 0.059 0. I(z/H). both in the subcritical regime and transcritical regime. the corresponding values of G have been worked out to be G=0.210 0. the values of Sz have been evaluated as Sz=0.2251 (12) 6.216 0.917 0. shown in ¯ Figure 7 of their paper.364 1. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 515 Table 10 Values of Griffin universal Strouhal number deduced from various full-scale experiments.77 0.065 0. .61 0.20 0. in which wind tunnel tests and full-scale tests are normally being conducted respectively. 6.269 1. A schematic view of the wind tunnel is given in Fig.8393∗I(z/H) 1.4 with a cov of 8%.1. CD decreases from 0.487 and 0. The power-law exponent varies from 0.62 0.225 0. Hamburg. 5.706 0. k. are referred to by Davenport [38].36 depending upon the wind direction. The total height of the tower is 46 m and 16 differential pressure transducers have been mounted at 17. Using these data. From the measured pressure spectra at the region of flow separation at z=17 m and at z=30 m.200 0. given by Eq. 25. [23] Sanada et al. Investigator (full-scale experiments) Melbourne [35.48 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 1. shown in Figure 7 of their paper.44.60 0.065 as exhibited by other full-scale as well as wind tunnel test results.CD/k 3 Re×107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0. Arunachalam et al.073 0. the average value of Cpb is taken as equal to 0.200 0. Maier and Plate have investigated the velocity and pressure field on a prototype cylindrical tower located in an irregular terrain [34]. It has a total length of 52 m with a test section of size.065 0.21 to 0.7 and 0.068 0.065.066 using Eq. Thus the value of Griffin universal Strouhal number is computed as equal to 0.065.073 and G=0. Details of full-scale wind pressure measurements conducted by Jensen on a 240 m tall cylindrical tower.93 0.250 0. with turbulence intensity. Thus these full-scale data also yield a value of G around 0.225 1.067 0. k. Mean=0. (11) works out to be 0.005.066 0.706 0. cov=7.8 m(H)×18 m(L).62 0.23 respectively. as shown in Fig.216 at z=30 m.055 0. The authors admit that the number of test data points discussed above are less in number and they believe that the preciseness of the value of G can be improved with addition of more test data when available.61 0.07 0. 5.93 at z=17 m to 0. 0.269 1. The computed value of G using Eq.29 0.180 0.7% SI no. (11). The maximum speed that can be attained in this tunnel is 55 m/s.066 at z=17 m and z=30 m respectively. Fig. 0. CD and Strouhal number are 0.066 0.917.5 and 30 m levels and based on the mean pressure distributions measured at different directions and heights. The reported values of ¯ ¯ Cpb.20 at z=17 m and Sz=0. Madras. The reported values of mean drag ¯ coefficient. ¯ ¯ the reported values of Cpb. The equation of the best-fit line is given by : k 0.

are 1. The spectra of pressure signals were suitably corrected for the frequency response of the tubing system using the analytically derived tubing frequency response of the pneumatic circuit by means of available software. The Reynolds number values.61. The average value of correlation coefficient. The pressure signals were acquired at a scanning rate of 500 Hz.95×105 respectively.516 S. Twelve pressure taps were provided at each of the two levels of z=35 cm and z=24 cm at 30° uniform intervals along the circumference.39d. In the present study. and with a length of 50 cm each were used. The corresponding value of correlation length for the tested cylinder with l=4 at z=35 cm is found to be 1. 10 as a function of azimuthal angle. C L. Hence using Eq. . volume of electro-scan pressure transducers. Arunachalam et al. CD and the rms lift coefficient.39d/3.VS is given by the ratio (1.2 mm ID.V for tested cylinder is obtained as. for q=60° to q=180° is found to be 0. the correction factor for C L. C L have been computed and these values are equal to 0. Results and discussion The mean and fluctuating pressure distributions measured on the cylinder at z=35 cm are given in Figs. the value of C L. USA. the values of correlation coefficient. no restrictors were used.turb is worked out to be 0. through the following equations.494 and 0. 6. (17) discussed in Appendix A. Three dimensional view of boundary layer wind tunnel structure. was used for acquisition of pressure signals.16. ¯ the mean drag coefficient.0 and 19. for a period of 10 s per channel. The value of dynamic pressure at z=35 cm was experimentally found to be 157 Pa.16) and the turbulence intensity profiles simulated in the tunnel are shown in Fig. R(r) have been obtained and they are plotted in Fig.5 m/s. Further.b). Pressure tubes made of PVC material with 1. 6. the pressure measurement system with electronic pressure transducers supplied by M/s Pressure Systems. As described earlier. (18). The mean velocity profile (a=0. the value of c is found to be 0.2. ( z/d=r/d=11 cm). The above curve can be seen to be reasonably symmetric. The simulated spectrum of wind compared well with Karman’s spectrum for longitudinal component of velocity.35×105 and 1. (4). By integration of pressure coefficients. The software uses parameters such as diameter and length of tubing. Using this value in Eq.4d) and the modified value. 7(a. The rigid model was made out of acrylic material. the value of C L. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 Fig. based on the free-stream velocities of 13.3. 8 and 9. ¯ ¯ CD p/12∗ CpIcos 30(i 1) C L (13) (14) p/12∗ C pIsin 30(i 1) The value of turbulence intensity at z=35 cm was equal to 0.VS from Eq.048. (6) is calculated as equal to 0.67. which are typical for an open terrain category. Based on measured fluctuating pressure data from 12 corresponding taps at the two levels of z=35 cm and z=24 cm. Experimental set-up The model cylinder had a diameter of 15 cm and a total height of 60 cm (l=4). and restrictors/manifolds included in pneumatic circuit. 6. its flexibility. using Eq.215.22 respectively. Since the volume of these pressure transducers is very small compared to that of pressure transducers used in conventional system. Data were acquired for two different values of free-stream velocity.

From the power spectrum of pressure shown in Fig.V (1. (b) turbulence intensity profile. z=35 cm.10. 11.215) 0. C L. 6). the value of Cpb is found to be 0. Variation of correlation coefficient with azimuthal angle (PRTW300p1.209. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 517 Fig. (a) Mean velocity profile. Arunachalam et al. This gives a value of the wake parameter. k=1. Mean pressure distribution on the circular cylinder.181. no.5 Hz. it is found that the peak occurs at the shedding frequency of 23. Hence using Eq. Rms pressure distribution on the circular cylinder. Fig.dat). 8. The corresponding Strouhal number is computed as 0. 10.4d)∗(0. 6). tap .S.089 suggested by the authors. This is in good agreement with the value of 0. Fig. 11. Fig.39d/3. Spectrum of pressure for a tap in the wake (z=35 cm.088 (15) Fig. for a tap in the wake (Tap no. ¯ Further. 7. z=35 cm. 9.

518 S. This further supports the validity of the hypothesis discussed earlier.065 (with a cov of 8%). the modified value of rms lift coefficient due only to vortex shedding. (4).088 and 0.i 0 R(r)dr (16) . Conclusions A new empirical method is presented for correlating the values of rms lift coefficient.turb is computed Step 3: Using Eq. G. (6). independent of Re number regime.V and G as equal to 0.i/3. exhibit values of C L. C L. both in subcritical and transcritical regimes. Madras. k is found to be linearly related to the turbulence intensity. 6. A procedure for estimating Griffin universal Strouhal number.V The following procedure is suggested to determine the values of C L.089 (with a cov of 18%). Acknowledgements This paper is published with the kind permission of the Director. A procedure for prediction of Strouhal number and C L. and Strouhal number.V shows a mean value equal to 0. Correlation length The fluctuating lift force at any location is generally imperfectly correlated with fluctuating lift with some other location. Ruscheweyh and Davenport which include both wind tunnel and fullscale experiments.067. provided corresponding values of CD and Cpb or k are known.089 (with a cov of 18%). (a) mean drag coefficient (b) turbulence intensity corresponding to the height of the measurement (c) local rms lift coefficient. This hypothesis is validated using the test data measured by the authors and also the published test results in the literature by Kareem. Cheung and Melbourne. Cpb (f) Strouhal number based on spectrum of pressure from a tap in the wake Step 2: Using Eq. Step 1: From the pressure measurement test data the following input parameters are initially evaluated. S. as follows: Lc. the wake parameter. independent of Reynolds number.V and G being almost invariant with change in Reynolds number and that G is directly related to Sz in every individual case are adequate reasons to support the claim that the wind tunnel tests can be considered as a reliable method (even though conducted with relaxation of Re number similarity) to predict the values of Strouhal number Sz and C L. it may be stated that since the value of G is close to 0. The correlation length can be obtained using the correlation coefficient. be it in a wind tunnel or in a full-scale ¯ ¯ study.4. C L (d) correlation length.065 with a cov of 8% 7.V attains a mean value 0. It is hypothesized that at any given height. k using Eq. the observations that the values of C L. Waldeck.VS is computed Step 4: C L.V=(Lc. Also. C L.065 (with a cov of 8%). Appendix A. as discussed earlier.4d)*C L.V is suggested. for any individual test case.VS and this value is expected to be close to 0. r=|z2 z1|. In other words. (12) Step 6: Compute Griffin universal Strouhal number. the Griffin universal Strouhal number. S relevant to full-scale chimney conditions based on corresponding values on circular cylinders in properly simulated boundary layer wind tunnel results. independent of Re number.I corresponding to the height of the measurement (discussed in Appendix A) ¯ (e) base pressure coefficient. Arunachalam et al. C L. R(r). The correlation length between two points. the rms value of lift coefficient due to vortex shedding. all these data yield a Griffin universal Strouhal number equal to about 0. C L. G and C L. Lc. is computed as equal to 0. C L. G using Eq. it becomes possible to compute the value of conventional Strouhal number.067. Thus the experimental data on the circular cylinder measured by the authors under simulated atmospheric flow conditions.V and S corresponding to full-scale conditions. This correlation is usually represented by a correlation length.V corresponding to full-scale chimney conditions. In view of the above. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 (11). Garg and Niemann. which is expressed in multiples of diameter of the structure. z1 and z2 is evaluated by the integration of the correlation coefficient with respect to the separation distance. independent of the test Reynolds number Step 5: Evaluate wake parameter.V and G from a pressure measurement study on a circular cylinder carried out either in wind tunnel or in full-scale conditions. Similarly.089 (with a cov of 18%). Sanada et al. Structural Engineering Research Centre.. the authors conclude that wind tunnel experiments can be viewed as reliable tools for extrapolating/predicting values of C L. Vickery and Clark. Further. (11) and this is expected to be close to 0. independent of Re number based on both wind tunnel and full-scale test data published. From the foregoing discussions.

24:33–69. [11] CICIND. London: HMSO. Full-scale measurements of wind force acting on a 200 m concrete chimney and the chimney response. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1983. Melbourne WH. New Delhi. Wind engineering. Pergamon Press.D.38:167–84. Scanlan RH. Aerodynamic stability. Plate EJ. Cheung JCK. Universal similarity in the wakes of stationary and vibrating bluff structures. Lu PC. we get (18) Lc. parts 1 and 2. [14] Scruton C. Zurich. The aeroelastic modelling of chimneys and towers. between two signals X and Y is evaluated as the ratio of the cross covariance. [9] Vickery BJ. Designer’s guide to wind loading of building structures. Wind Tunnel modelling as a means of predicting response of chimneys to vortex shedding. Scruton C. Criteria for design of reinforced concrete chimneys. 1963:798–836. In Cermak JE. to the product of individual rms values. The response of reinforced concrete chimneys to vortex shedding. [23] Sanada S. India. The measured and predicted response of a 300 m concrete chimney. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1990. Plate EJ. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1992.12:49–97. Oxford: Butterworths. Model code for concrete chimneys—part A. the spatial coherence of the pressures in the flow has been determined by the two-point lateral correlations at zero time lag. [28] Griffin OM. In Cermak JE.109:239–51. 1st ed. [20] Blevins RD. Goddard CR. Vortex shedding from circular cylinders in turbulent flow. Ph. Eng Struct 1984.98:1–20. 1992. [18] Niemann HJ. towers and masts. Wind effects on structures. A crosswind response of reinforced concrete chimneys. Madras. [15] Vickery BJ. Cxy. Arunachalam et al. 1984. Eng Struct 1984. UK. J Struct Div ASCE 1972. In practice. Wind forces and strains of reinforced concrete chimneys. 2nd ed. New Delhi. editor. Niemann HJ. Lift or crosswind response of tapered stacks. Prototype and model experiments on wind induced vibrations of a steel tower. [19] Wooten LR. American Concrete Institute. paper 5:1970:65–80.69(70–71):91– 103.6:364–8. Detroit. h. [6] Vickery BJ. 1980. [31] Cook NJ. MI. 1985. [12] ACI-307.43:2165–76. the correaltion coefficient can be expressed by a negative exponential function as [29]: R(r) exp( c(r/d)) in which c r/d dimensionless coefficient normalized separation distance (17) in which c From Eqs.2:757–68.33:181–96. Heinecke E. Univ. Colorado. Suzuki M.49:167–76. [25] Li QS. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1997. India. [27] Cheung JCK. 1982:408–28. On three ditttensionality of fluctuatittg aerodynamics forces on circular cylindrical structures. [16] Schnabel W.1:607–17. [3] Simiu E. New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold. Measurement of velocity near and pressure on a cylindrical tower located on irregular terrain. (14) and (15). In: Proceedings of CIRIA. [2] Vickery BJ. Publications on ‘The modern design of wind sensitive structures’. Wind engineering. 1980. for a cylinder with finite height. New York: Wiley Interscience.33:197–209.14:399–410. . USA. [24] Cheng CM. Proceedings of the Wind Tunnel Modelling for Civil Engineering Applications. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Wind Engineering.41–44:2141–52. 1990. USA. of Houston. Pressure and force fluctuations on isolated cylinders of finite height in boundary layer flows. A review of recent experiments on the flow past circular cylinders. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1992. (ACI-307-88).i/d [(1 exp( c(h/d)))/c] References [1] Blackburn HM. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1991. ‘The Shell’. 1995:165–76.41:229–40. [29] Howell JF. 2nd ed. [34] Erbacher JM. [35] Melbourne WH.3:481–508. Holscher N. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 519 In the present study. for narrow band correlations such as vortex shedding. J Struct Eng ASCE 1985. (sxsy). Basu RI. Effects of surface roughness on the universal Strouhal number over the wide Reynolds number range. [21] Garg RK. [33] Kessler H. Daly A. R(r). editor. [30] Adachi T. Melbourne WH. Flow induced vibration. Thesis. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1983. Response to wind action of 265 m Mount Isa stack. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Strategies for Design and Construction of Structures to Mitigate Damage Due to Cyclones. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1989. Pergamon Press. Basu RI. 1986. Effects of turbulence on surface pressures of a flat plate and rectangular cylinders in separated and reattached flows. New Delhi. Novak M. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [22] Waldeck JL. The correlation coefficient. [10] Vickery BJ. [17] Achenbach E.S. On vortex shedding from smooth and rough cylinders in the range of Reynolds numbers from 6×103 to 5×106. Predicting the crosswind response of masts and structural members. Melbourne WH. Clark AW. Building research establishments.32:181–7. [4] Kareem A. [5] Kareem A.1:619–29. Acrosswind response of towers and stacks of circular cross section. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1997. Standard practice for the design and construction of cast-in place reinforced concrete chimneys.69(70–71):399–412. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1990.. BIS. J Fluids Struct 1989. Aerodynamic forces on structures of circular cross section—part 2—the influence of turbulence and three dimensional effects. [7] Vickery BJ. Acrosswind vibration of structures of circular cross section. Matsumoto H. J Fluid Mech 1981. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1993.109:2561–77. 1980.6:324–33. Structural Engineering Research Centre. [26] Melbourne WH. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1992. In: Proceedings of the 9th ICWE. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1986. In: Proceedings of the 5th ICWE. [32] Basu RI. In: Proceedings of the 1st ICWE. 1984. 1995:129–41. On the wind excited oscillations of stacks. In: Part 1. 1994:75-105. [13] IS:4998-(Part-2)-. Cross flow response of slender circular cylindrical structures—prediction models and recent experimental results. In: Rheinhold TA. 1988. editor. [8] Vickery BJ. Progress and problems in the prediction of the response of prototype structures to vortex induced excitation. Cheng CM. Turbulence effects of some aerodynamic parameters of a circular cylinder at supercritical Reynolds numbers. Acrosswind loading on reinforced concrete chimneys of circular section.

520 S.1:315–33. Sun TF. . West GS. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502–520 [36] Rusecheweyh H. [37] Wieringa J. Zhang LL. [39] Papoulis A. [38] Davenport AG. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1976. Probability. Two circular cylinders in high turbulence at super-critical Reynolds number.1:23–54. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1992.49:389–400. Germany. Perspectives on the full-scale measurement of wind effects. 1991. [41] Fox TA. Apelt CJ. The aerodynamic disturbance caused by the free-ends of a circular cylinder immersed in a uniform flow. Hamburg. New York: McGraw Hill.41–44:357–68. J Wind Eng and Ind Aero 1993. He DX. Updating the Davenport roughness classification.49:379–88. [40] Gu ZF. random variables and stochastic processes. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1993. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1975. Arunachalam et al. Wind loadings on the television tower.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->