63 views

Uploaded by DIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON

- BEE Paperfinal2006colour
- Ground Acceleration
- Abstract
- Seismicassessmentofbuildingsaccordingtoeurocode8part3w Oexampleofetabs 140112124335 Phpapp02
- Advanced in Earthquake Engineering Applications
- Concrete Admixture Catalogue
- 1-s2.0-S0143974X11001817-main
- Earthquake Engineering
- Kalkan Kunnath
- Estudio Edificio Don Tristan.pdf
- Civil Structural Design Calculations _ Cement Mill 4 .pdf
- Seismic Design Value Maps.pdf
- Comparative Study of Various Seismic Analysis Methods for Rc Structure
- ACI 307_1998 Chimney Design Commentary 307R_98
- 2015-10_acisj_Compressive Strength Unreinforced Struts
- Bayblend Fr3008 Hr Iso
- Li_Bo
- CourseICCE1992-BurcharthA
- 1.0 BEAM DESIGN
- Structural Reliability Framework

You are on page 1of 14

Commentary on Standard Practice for the Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys (ACI 307-95)

Reported by ACI Committee 307

Randolph W. Snook Chairman David J. Bird Victor A. Bochicchio William F. Brannen John J. Carty Phillip B. Davidson Shu-Jin Fang Milton Harstein Erick N. Larson Robert A. Porthouse Ronald E. Purkey Scott D. Richart Wadi S. Rumman Niran G. Shah John C. Sowizal Barry V. Vickery Chung-Yee John Wei Winston W. Yau Edward L. Yordy

This commentary discusses some of the background and consideration of Committee 307 in developing the provisions contained in Standard Practice for the Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys (ACI 307-95). The changes from the previous edition are noted. Two appendixes provide the derivation of the equations for nominal strength and temperature stresses. Keywords: chimneys; compress ive strength ;concrete construction; earthquake-resistant structures; form work (construction); foundations; high temperature; linings; loads (forces); moments; openings; precast concrete; quality control ;reinforced concrete; reinforcing steels; specications; static loads; strength; structural analysis structural design; temperature; ; thermal gradient; wind pressure.

Chapter 4Service loads and general design criteria, p. 307R-3 4.1General 4.2Wind loads 4.3Earthquake loads 4.5Deflection criteria Chapter 5Design of chimney shellStrength method, p. 307R-6 5.1General 5.4Design strength 5.5Nominal moment strength 5.6Design for circumferential bending Chapter 6Thermal stresses, p. 307R-7 6.1General 6.2Vertical temperature stresses Appendix ADerivation of equations for nominal strength, p. 307R-8 Appendix BDerivation of equations for temperature stresses, p. 307R-12 Appendix CReferences, p. 307R-13

CONTENTS Introduction, p. 307R-1 Chapter 1General, p. 307R-3 1.1Scope Chapter 2Materials, p. 307R-3 Chapter 3Construction requirements, p. 307R-3 3.3Strength tests 3.4Forms 3.5Reinforcing placement

ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and Commentaries are intended for guidance in designing, planning, executing, or inspecting construction and in preparing specifications. Reference to these documents shall not be made in the Project Documents. If items found in these documents are desired to be part of the Project Documents, they should be phrased in mandatory language and incorporated in the Project Documents.

ACI 307-95 supersedes ACI 307-88 andand became e ffective r. 1,r.1995. 307R-95 supersedes ACI 307R-88 became e ffective Ma Ma 1, 1995. Copyright 1995, American Concrete Institute. All rights reser ved including rights of reproduction and use in a ny form or by a ny means, including the making of copies by a ny photo process, or by a ny electronic or mechanical d evice, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduction or for use in a ny kn owledge or retri eval system or d evice, unless permission in writing is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

307R-1

307R-2

INTRODUCTION As industry expanded in the years immediately following World War I and as a result of the development of large pulverized coal-fired boilers for the electric power generating utilities in the 1920s, a number of rather large reinforced concrete chimneys were constructed to accommodate these new facilities. A group of interested engineers who foresaw the potential need for many more such chimneys and who were members of the American Concrete Institute decided to embark upon an effort to develop a rational design criteria for these structures. The group was organized into ACI Committee 505 (this committee was the predecessor of the present Committee 307) to develop such criteria in the early 1930s. Committee 505 submitted to the Institute a Proposed Standard Specification for the Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys, an outline of which was published in the ACI JOURNAL Proceedings V. 30, Mar.-Apr. 1934. This specification was adopted as a tentative standard in February, 1936. Although this tentative standard was never accepted by ACI as a regular standard, it was used as the basis for the design of many chimneys. As these chimneys aged, inspections revealed considerable cracking. When the industrial expansion began following World War II, other engineers recognized the need for developing an improved reinforced concrete chimney design specification. In May, 1949, Committee 505 was reactivated to revise the tentative standard specification, embodying modifications which were found desirable during the years it had been in use. The section dealing with the temperature gradient through the chimney lining and the chimney shell was completely revised and extended to cover varying kinds and thicknesses of linings and both unventilated and ventilated air spaces between the lining and the concrete shell. In 1954, this specification was approved as ACI 505-54. The rapid increase in the size and height of concrete chimneys being built in the mid 1950s raised further questions about the adequacy of the 1954 version of the specification, especially as related to earthquake forces and the effects of wind. In May, 1959, the ACI Board of Direction again reactivated Committee 505 (Committee 307) to review the standard and to update portions of the specification in line with the latest design techniques and the then-current knowledge of the severity of the operating conditions which prevailed in large steam plants. The material in the standard was reorganized, charts were added, and the methods for determining loads due to wind and earthquakes were revised. The information on design and construction of various types of linings was amplified and incorporated in an appendix. This specification included criteria for working stress design. It was planned to add ultimate strength criteria in a future revision of this standard. In preparing the earthquake design recommendations, the Committee incorporated the results of theoretical studies by adapting them to existing United States codes. The primary problems in this endeavor stemmed from the uncertainties still inherent in the definition of earthquake forces and from

the difficulty of selecting the proper safety and serviceability levels that may be desirable for various classes of construction. Committee investigations revealed that with some of the modifications (such as the K factor), the base shear equations developed by the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) could be applied to chimneys. Similarly, the shape of the force, shear, and moment distributions, as revised in their 1967 report, were also suitable for chimneys. A use factor (U factor) ranging from 1.3 to 2.0 was introduced in the specification and it was emphasized that the requirements of Section 4.5 of ACI 307-69 relating to seismic design may be superseded by a rational analysis based on evaluation of the seismicity of the site and modal response calculations. The modifications were approved in 1969 and the specification was designated ACI 307-69. In that specification, the commentary and derivation of equations were published separately as a supplement to ACI 307-69. In 1970 the specification was reissued with corrections of typographical errors. This issue of ACI 307-69 was also designated ANSI A158.1-1970. At the time, as a result of numerous requests, the commentary and derivation of equations were bound together with the specification. The 1979 revision of the specification updated its requirements to agree with the then-accepted standard practice in the design and construction of reinforced concrete chimneys. The major changes included the requirement that two layers of reinforcing steel be used in the walls of all chimneys (previously this only applied to chimney walls thicker than 18 in.) and the requirement that horizontal sections through the chimney wall be designed for the radial wind pressure distribution around the chimney. Formulas were included to compute the stresses under these conditions. Many revisions of a less important nature were included to bring the specification up to date. The editions of the specifications prior to 1979 included appendixes on the subject of chimney linings and accessories. In 1971, Committee 307 learned of buckling problems in steel chimney liners. The Committee also noted that in modern power plant and process chimneys, environmental regulations required treatment of the effluent gases that could result in extremely variable and aggressively corrosive conditions in the chimneys. In view of these facts, the Committee agreed that the task of keeping the chimney liner recommendations current was not a responsibility of an ACI committee and could be misleading to designers using the chimney specification. It was the consensus of the Committee that the reference to chimney liner construction be dropped from future editions of the specification. Recognizing this, Committee 307 made a recommendation to the Brick Manufacturers Association and the American Society of Civil Engineers that each appoint a task force or a committee for the development of design criteria for brick and steel liners, respectively. The Power Division of ASCE took up the recommendation and appointed a task committee which developed and published in 1975 a design guide entitled Design and Construction of Steel Chimney Liners.

307R-3

ASTM established two task forces for chimney liners, one for brick and the other for fiberglass reinforced plastic. The Committee had extensive discussion on the question of including strength design in the 1979 specification. The decision to exclude it was based on the lack of experimental data on hollow concrete cylinders to substantiate this form of analysis for concrete chimneys. However, the Committee continued to consider strength design and encouraged experiments in this area. Shortly after the 1979 edition was issued, the Committee decided to incorporate strength design provisions and update the wind and earthquake design requirements. Synopsis of Current Revisions The 1988 edition of ACI 307 incorporated significant changes in the procedures for calculating wind forces as well as requiring strength design rather than working stress. The effects of these and other revisions have resulted in designs with relatively thin walls governed mainly by steel area and, in many instances, across-wind forces. For the past several years the subject of across-wind loads has dominated the attention of the Committee and the current standard introduces modified procedures which reflect more recent information and thinking. Precast chimney design and construction techniques have been introduced as this type of design has become more prevalent for chimneys as tall as 300 ft. The subject of noncircular shapes has also been introduced. However, due to the virtually infinite array of possible configurations, only broadly defined procedures are presented. Because of dissimilarities between the load factors required by the ACI 307 standard and ACI 318, the Committee added guidelines for determining bearing pressures and loads to size and design chimney foundations. In summary, the following highlights the major changes incorporated in the current standard: Modified procedures for calculating across-wind loads. Added requirements for precast concrete chimney columns. Added procedures for calculating loads and for designing noncircular chimney columns. Deleted exemptions previously granted to smaller chimneys regarding reinforcing and wall thickness. Deleted static equivalent procedures for calculating earthquake forces. Finally, the Committee believes that the ACI 307 standard is particularly unique in its inclusion of specific procedures to calculate wind and seismic forces on chimneys. Consequently, the Committee feels that the previous Commentary regarding these subjects should be retained wherever possible. Similarly, the Committee believes that the Commentary regarding the assumptions and procedures for strength design should also be retained for reference. Comments on other sections are included only where material changes have been made and/or where further explanation may be helpful.

A chapter-by-chapter commentary follows. CHAPTER 1GENERAL 1.1Scope The scope of the standard has been expanded to include precast chimney shells. Additional information may be found in PCI manuals.1,2 Warnes3 provides further guidelines on connection details for precast structures. Additional information is given in ACI 550R, Design Recommendations for Precast Concrete Structures. CHAPTER 2MATERIALS No changes of note have been made in this section. CHAPTER 3CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 3.3Strength tests Requirements for testing precast concrete units have been added. 3.4Forms Shear transfer within precast concrete shells must be considered in design especially if the structure has vertical as well as horizontal construction joints. 3.Reinforcing placement The size, spacing, and location of vertical cores within precast concrete chimney shells will be determined by geometry and steel area requirements. It is important that the design of precast chimneys comply with the minimum spacing requirements of ACI 318 when arranging reinforcing within the cores to permit proper bar splicing and concrete placement. CHAPTER 4SERVICE LOADS AND GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA 4.1General The Committee has re-evaluated the previous exemptions regarding two face reinforcing and minimum wall thickness for chimneys 300 ft or less in height and less than 20 ft in diameter. Recent information has indicated that two-face circumferential reinforcement is necessary to minimize vertical cracking due to radial wind pressures and reverse thermal gradients due to the effects of sun heating. Reverse thermal gradients due to sunlight may be more pronounced when the air space between the column and lining is purged by pressurization fans and gas temperatures are low. Further, the Committee believes that two-face reinforcing should be required in all chimney columns, regardless of size, considering the aggressive environment surrounding chimneys. 4.1.3.1A minimum wall thickness of 8 in. (7 in. if precast) is now required to provide for proper concrete placement within and around two curtains of reinforcement. 4.1.3.2The Committee has expressed concern regarding edge buckling of relatively thin walls through regions where tall openings are present. The simplified procedure

307R-4

given in this section will give approximately the same results as the procedures of Chapter 10.10 of ACI 318. If jamb buttresses are used, it is recommended that they be poured homogeneously with the section or adequately tied to assure composite action. 4.2Wind loads 4.2.1 Wind loadsGeneralThe specified wind loads are determined from simplified dynamic analyses which yield equivalent static load distributions. This approach requires that a wind speed averaged over a period on the order of 20 min to 1 hr be used as a basis for design. Eq. (4-1) permits the mean hourly speed at height z to be determined from the basic design speed which is the fastest mile speed at 33 ft over open country. The conversion is based on the relationship recommended by Hollister.4 The specified wind loads presume that the chimney is located in open country. In rougher terrains the overall loads will be reduced, but for a tall chimney (height on the order of 650 ft) the reduction is not likely to exceed 20 percent. Vr in Eq. (4-1) is the product of the importance factor I and V, the basic wind speed as charted and defined in ASCE 788. It should be noted that I can be used to vary probability, as well as to classify the importance of the structure. To avoid confusion, the Committee believes that all chimneys should be designed for a minimum recurrence period of 50 years and considered to be part of an essential facility classified as a Category III structure. Additional information can be found in ASCE 7-88. The simplified provisions of this standard do not preclude the use of more detailed methods, and the results of a full dynamic analysis employing accepted approaches and recognizing the flow profile and turbulence levels at a specific site may be used in lieu of the standard provisions. The approximate methods have, however, been tested against more detailed analyses, using probablistic5,6 and deterministic7 approaches. These methods yielded acceptable results. 4.2.2 Along-wind loadsThe recommended drag coefficients are consistent with slender chimneys [h/d(h) > 20] with a relative surface roughness on the order of 10-4 to 10-5. Some reduction in the drag coefficient Cdr with decreasing h/d(h) can be expected but unusually rough (e.g., ribbed) chimneys would have higher values of Cdr. The variations of Cdr with roughness and aspect ratio are discussed by Basu8 and Vickery and Basu.9 The total load per unit length is computed as the sum of the mean component [w(z) = Cdr(z) d(z) p(z)] and the dynamic component w(z) = w(h) z/h]. The dynamic component was evaluated using a slightly modified form of the gust factor approaches described by Davenport,10 Vickery,5 and Simiu.11 The base moment is evaluated using the gust factor approach but the loads producing this moment are approximated by a triangular distribution rather than a distribution matching the mean. Eq. (4-6) is a simple empirical fit to values of Gw computed as before for a structural damping of 1.5 percent of critical. No revisions have been made to the procedures for calculating along-wind loads.

4.2.3 Across-wind loadsThe Committee has had numerous user comments and discussions regarding the procedures included in the 1988 standard for across-wind forces. Virtually all of the commentators felt that the procedures were unduly conservative especially in the absence of any record of structural failure. As a result of these discussions, and with the availability of new data and full-scale observations, the procedures for calculating across-wind loads have been extensively revised. A general solution for the across-wind response of circular chimneys with any geometry has been developed by Vickery.12 The current procedures, based on Vickery's general solution, have been simplified to some extent, which requires that their application be restricted to certain geometries. Similar models have provided the basis for vortexinduced forces incorporated by the National Building Code of Canada, and the ASME/ANSI STS-1-1993 Steel Stack Standard. Circular chimneys outside the bounds of the current procedures, or where a flare or strong taper (nozzle) exists for more than one diameter near the top, may be conservatively analyzed using the procedures of Section 4.2.3.3 of ACI 30788 or by the general approach put forth by Vickery.12 It should be noted, however, that the procedures for determining shedding forces are not materially affected by the configuration of the lower third of the shell, which may range from plumb to any degree of taper. However, it should also be noted that noncircular shapes may be more sensitive to across-wind forces requiring analyses beyond the scope of this standard. Eq. (4-16) establishes a basis for increasing structural damping from a minimum of 1.0 percent to a maximum of 4.0 percent when the wind speed V exceeds V(zcr). Structural damping of 1 percent of critical is consistent with measured values and moderate stress levels with little cracking. 4.0 percent damping, which would be permitted when V = 1.30 V(zcr), is more consistent with damping values permitted in seismic design. Eight sample chimneys were studied using the 1988 procedures and the current procedures. Fatigue damage was also considered using the procedures put forth by Vickery.12 It was concluded that a case-by-case analysis of fatigue in circular chimneys which would require a supplemental working stress analysis was not necessary, as fatigue stresses in the sample chimneys were within acceptable limits. A comparison of results using the 1988 procedures and the current procedures are shown in Table 4.2.3. These chimneys were selected from a group of recent projects and/or where the aspect ratio h/d is at or near 10, where peak excitation is normally found. Note that for Chimneys 3 and 5 the critical wind speed exceeds the design wind speed, permitting modification of both damping (Eq. 4-16) and Ma (Eq. 48a), which significantly reduces the base moments. 4.2.3.4 Grouped chimneysInteractions between closely spaced cylindrical objects have been studied in considerable detail but virtually all the test results are for subcritical values of Reynolds Numbers and their applicability to chimneys is highly questionable. However, even with the scale effects

307R-5

Chimney 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Height, ft 485 500 534 545 613 978 275 375 TOD, ft 47.67 52.17 51.09 33.00 73.00 71.50 28.00 20.00 Description of chimneys BOD, ft Tapers 53.50 3 52.17 1 61.55 1 55.00 1 73.00 1 114.58 3 28.00 1 32.00 1 Calculated wind speeds Chimney 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Per ACI 307-88 Vcr, mph V(zcr), mph 78.9 76.2 106.4 54.0 101.1 72.0 71.8 39.7 93.9 84.0 84.8 96.0 86.4 92.3 87.2 91.1 V(zcr), mph 93.3 83.5 84.3 95.5 85.9 91.7 86.7 90.6 Per current standard V, mph 88.3 83.5 84.3 55.2 85.9 66.0 86.7 45.3 Vcr, mph 77.8 76.3 105.2 48.6 104.9 66.0 71.5 34.6 k 1.135 1.094 0.802 1.135 0.820 1.000 1.214 1.310 VI, mph 85.0 76.8 74.9 85.6 74.9 74.9 85.6 85.6 h/d at 5/6h 10.17 09.58 10.11 14.86 08.40 13.68 09.82 17.05 Frequency, hz 0.485 0.428 0.591 0.432 0.406 0.295 0.752 0.529

Chimney 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Factored base wind moments in ft-tons Per ACI 307-88, RMS combined Per ACI 307-95, RMS combined along- and across-wind: Bs = 0.015; along- and across-wind: Bs = 0.010; LF = 1.40 LF = 1.40 270,600 209,200 283,500 224,100 447,800 238,100 117,500 79,400 971,700 459,100 1,475,800 977,400 39,800 34,100 16,500 11,600

Per ACI 307-88 and ACI 307-95 along-wind only: LF = 1.70 160.900 148,000 165,100 161,200 320,700 865,300 28,600 43,800

introduced by the inequality of the Reynolds Number, the wind tunnel is presently the only tool that will provide guidance as to the likely magnitude of interference effects. A review of interference effects is given by Zdravkokvich.13 Vickery12 attributes the amplification of shedding forces to increased turbulence and additional buffeting effects, which formed the basis for revisions made to this section. At center-to-center spacings s, in excess of 2 to 3 diameters the prime interference effect is related to the across-wind excitation due to shedding. The recommendations in Section 4.2.3.4 are based on the results of Vickery and Daly14 and were obtained at subcritical values of the Reynolds Number. The first term in modifier (c) is an enhancement factor to account for buffeting due to vortices shed by the upstream structure and the second term accounts for small-scale turbulence. The same reference also contains results for two cylinders of different size with the upstream structure having a diameter 25 percent greater than the diameter d of the other. In this case the amplification of the response of the downwind chimney is roughly 3.4 - 0.2s/d for 4 < s/d < 12. The amplification of shedding for grouped cylinders has also been noted at full scale15 but the available data is not suffi-

cient to quantitatively validate model test results. 4.2.4 Circumferential bendingThe equation for the prediction of the circumferential moments is based upon measured pressure distributions.16,17 Comparative values for the bending moments as obtained from different distributions are given in Reference 7. The use of a gust factor Gr in this computation is based upon the assumption that the mean pressure distribution (when expressed in coefficient form) is also applicable for short duration gusts. The increase in the loads near the tip is consistent with observations18 that the drag coefficient increases significantly in this region. 4.3Earthquake loads Earthquake moments for Chimneys 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of Table 4.2.3 were calculated using the static equivalent procedures of the 1988 standard and by the present dynamic response spectrum method. The analyses show that discrepancies in moments, especially in the upper portions of the chimney, could be as high as 25 percent. In addition, a survey of designer-members revealed that only the dynamic response spectrum procedures are being

307R-6

used, as this method is recognized to be more accurate and reliable, especially for noncircular chimneys. Further, most, if not all, building codes permit the use of a dynamic analysis in lieu of their published static equivalent methods. Finally, previous commentators argued to retain a static equivalent procedure in the standard to accommodate engineers who do not have access to computer-aided design. However, the prolification of powerful personal computers and finite element programs over the past several years mutes this argument. In view of these factors, the Committee decided to delete the static equivalent method of analysis requiring that a dynamic analysis be performed for all chimneys. It should be noted, however, that static equivalent procedures are useful to approximate earthquake forces for preliminary design and when confirming computer programs. The design response spectrum provided in the standard is an average elastic response spectrum, normalized for a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 1.00 with 5 percent of critical damping. It represents a spectrum of 50 percent shapebound probability level that the response of the structure during an earthquake would not exceed. It is the same spectrum that has been adopted for use in the design of steel chimney liners for earthquakes by the Task Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers.19 To obtain the design response spectrum, the normalized spectrum must be scaled down to the effective peak velocity, EPV, related ground acceleration. The ASCE 7-88 map for the EPV related acceleration coefficient is used in this standard. This map differs from those used in the Uniform Building Code, which was based on the maximum recorded intensity of shaking without regard to the frequency with which earthquake shaking might occur. The ASCE 7-88 map, on the other hand, has a more uniform probability of earthquake occurrence, and is based on those given by the Applied Technology Council, ATC 3.06 contour map.20 For example, in Zone 4 seismic area, the EPV related acceleration is 0.4g and the probability of not exceeding this peak EPV ground acceleration within 50 years is estimated to be 90 percent. This is equivalent to a mean recurrence interval of 475 years, or an average annual risk of 0.002 events per year. The peak EPV related ground acceleration at a site can be determined either using this zoning map and the recommended scale factors given in Table 4.3.2 or from the specific seismic record available at the site. It should be noted that a ductility factor of 1.33 is built into the scale factors of Table 4.3.2. For instance, instead of 0.44, a scale factor of 0.33 is used for a Zone 4 area. It should also be pointed out that the recommended design response spectrum is based on firm soil sites. Soil conditions at the firm site consist of bedrock with shear wave velocity greater than 2500 ft/sec or deep soil with soil depth exceeding 200 ft, and the soil types overlaying rock are stable deposits of sands, gravels, stiff clays, or stiff soils with deposits less than 200 ft. For chimneys to be built on shallow and soft or medium-stiff clays and sands, a greater design response spectrum is anticipated. Guidelines provided in ATC 3.0620 to obtain a modified design response spectrum and the soil-

structure interaction may be used. In lieu of a dynamic response spectrum analysis, a time history dynamic analysis is permitted, provided a reliable time history of earthquake ground motion is used. Due to the complications of time history analysis and scarce availability of earthquake ground motion time history records, the Committee adopted the dynamic response spectrum analysis. In the design of a chimney for horizontal earthquake forces, only one horizontal direction need be considered. Unlike building structures, chimneys are generally axisymmetric, and the orthogonal effects from two horizontal earthquakes acting simultaneously in the two principal directions are negligible. The effect of the vertical component of the earthquake on the chimney has been determined to be of no design significance. An extensive time history analysis made by the Committee shows that the effect of vertical earthquake motions adds only a few percent of vertical stresses to those resulting from the dead load and horizontal earthquake. One of the principal reasons is due to the fact that the peak responses between vertical and horizontal earthquakes do not occur at the same instant. Design based on SRSS of vertical and horizontal earthquake forces will be unduly conservative. Therefore, the inclusion of vertical seismic effects is not recommended by the Committee. For cases in which the chimney lining (brick, steel, or other materials) is supported by the concrete chimney shell, either at the top of the chimney shell or at other intermediate points, a dynamic analysis including both concrete shell and liner should be used. Appropriate damping values should be used for the liner depending on its construction (e.g., 1.5 percent for steel liners, 4.0 percent for brick liners, and 2.0 percent for fiber reinforced plastic liners). 4.5Deflection criteria The incorporation of the strength design method into the standard will generally result in chimneys with thinner walls in the lower portion and with higher deflections. The Committee felt that deflections under service loads should be checked and that the deflections of chimneys designed by the strength method should not vary greatly from the deflections of existing chimneys designed by the working stress method. Limiting deflections also serves to reduce the effects of secondary bending moments. However, the procedures in the 1988 edition were found to be too restrictive for shorter chimneys and have been modified. See Eq. (4-45). Operation, access for inspection, lining type, etc., as well as wind or earthquake-induced deflection, should be considered when establishing shell geometry. CHAPTER 5DESIGN OF CHIMNEY SHELL STRENGTH METHOD 5.1General Except for the addition of precast chimney shells and a general procedure for designing noncircular shapes, no revi-

307R-7

sions of note have been made to this section. However, the previous commentary is retained for reference. 5.1.2 The maximum compressive strain in the concrete is assumed to be 0.003, or the maximum tensile strain in the steel is assumed to be the fracture limit of 0.07, whichever is reached first. If the steel fracture limit is reached first, the maximum concrete strain computed from the linear strain diagram is below 0.003. This deviates from the design assumptions of ACI 318. For a given total vertical steel ratio, this may occur when the ratio of the vertical load to the moment is below a certain value. A total vertical steel ratio in the chimney cross section less than that per the minimum requirement of ACI 318 for flexural members is permitted. Even when the maximum concrete compressive strain m is less than 0.003, the stress block is still considered rectangular. However, in these instances, the stress level is modified by a correction factor called the parameter Q. See commentary on Section 5.5.1. 5.4Design strength 5.4.1 In the calculation of limit state bending moments, allowance needs to be made for the moment caused by the weight of the chimney in its deflected shape. The deflection will be less than that calculated by standard methods due to the stiffening effect of the concrete in the cracked tension zone. Further investigation of this stiffening effect needs to be made. At present, the Committee has decided not to make a specific recommendation. Instead, the value of (Section 5.4.1) was lowered to 0.8 to account for this effect and deflection criteria were added. The formulas are also derived for cross sections with one or two openings in, or partly in, the compression zone. No reduction in the forces and moments due to reinforcing steel is made to allow for the reduction in the distance of the additional vertical reinforcement on each side of the opening, provided per Section 4.4.6. 5.5Nominal moment strength The formulas for the nominal moment strength of chimney cross sections are obtained based on the design assumptions of ACI 318, except as modified under Section 5.1.2 of this standard. The derivations of the formulas are given in Appendix A. The formulas are derived for circular hollow cross sections with a uniform distribution of vertical reinforcing steel around the circumference. 5.5.1 The parameter QThe use of a rectangular compression stress block for rectangular and T-shaped reinforced concrete beams came to be accepted after extensive comparative study between the analytical results using the stress-strain relationship and the test data. The acceptability of the rectangular stress block was based on the closeness between the results of the analyses and the tests, comparing the following: a) concrete compression; and b) moment of the compression about the neutral axis (for a rectangular section this is equivalent to the distance of the center of gravity of the compression stress block from the neutral axis).

The preceding comparative study was based on the limited test data available on reinforced concrete members of hollow circular sections subjected to axial and transverse loads.21 Another special problem in arriving at the compressive stress block for the analysis of reinforced concrete chimneys was the fact that the maximum concrete compressive strain is less than 0.003 when the fracture limit of steel is reached. That is, the compressive stress block is not fully developed (see commentary on Section 5.1.2). Thus the previous attempts at specifying the rectangular stress block for chimney cross sections needed to be modified. A numerical study was undertaken by the 1988 Committee to find an equivalent rectangular stress block for the calculation of the strength of chimney cross sections. For a given value of , the results of the rectangular concrete compression stress block, expressed by dimensionless modifications of (a) and (b) previously stated, were compared with the corresponding results using a more exact concrete stress-strain relationship22 given by Hognestad23 using a limiting strain of 0.003. The comparisons were made for hollow circular sections without openings and with single openings with values of of 10, 20, and 30 deg. It was concluded that for values of above 20 deg, or when the limiting strain of concrete is reached first, an equivalence between the two approaches is reached if the stress level of the rectangular compression block is reduced by a factor of 0.89. For values of below about 20 deg, a further correction is required, leading to the values of the parameter Q defined in Section 5.5.1. Thus the correction factor, or the parameter Q, achieves a close equivalence between the resulting values of (a) and (b) previously stated for the thereby corrected rectangular stress block and the stress block based on the Hognestad stress-strain relationship, yet retains the simplicity of the rectangular stress block. 5.5.6 Due to thermal exposure of the concrete chimneys the temperature drop across the wall reduces the nominal strength of chimney sections. This effect is accounted for by reducing the specified yield strength of steel and specified compressive strength of concrete. The derivation of equations is included in Appendix A. 5.6Design for circumferential bending 5.6.2 The commentary on Section 5.5.6 applies equally to this section. CHAPTER 6THERMAL STRESSES 6.1General The derivations of the formulas for the vertical and horizontal stresses in concrete and steel, due to a temperature drop only across the chimney wall, are given in Appendix B. No revisions have been made to this section. 6.2Vertical temperature stresses 6.2.2 The research data available to establish the coefficients of heat transfer through chimney lining and shell, especially as they concern the heat transfer from gases to the

307R-8

surfaces and through ventilated air spaces between lining and shell, are somewhat meager. Unless complete heat balance studies are made for the particular chimney, it is permissible to use constants as determined or stated in this standard. APPENDIX ADERIVATION OF EQUATIONS FOR NOMINAL STRENGTH Equations for the nominal strength of concrete chimney sections, with and without openings, are derived in this Appendix. The factored vertical load Pu and the corresponding nominal moment strength Mn are expressed in dimensionless form, as given in Section 5.5.1 by Eq. (5-2) and (5-10), respectively. Also a procedure to account for the temperature effects in the vertical and horizontal directions is outlined. Forces are designated as follows: P = total force in the concrete compressive stress block S1 = tensile force where steel stress is below yield point, from to = tensile force where steel stress is at yield S2 point, from to S3 = compressive force in steel where stress is below yield point, from to S4 = compressive force in steel where stress is at yield point, from 0 to P, S1, S2, = moments of P, S1, S2, S3, S4 about neutral S3, S4 axis, respectively Pu = factored vertical load acting on section Mn = nominal moment strength of the section = factored moment acting on the section Mu = capacity-reduction factor MDS = design moment strength of the section From Fig. 5.5.1(a) and 5.5.1(b) cos = 1 - 1 (1 - cos) cos = cos - [(1 - cos)/m](fy/Es) m = 0.07(1 - cos)/(1 + cos) 0.003 cos = cos + [(1 - cos)/m](fy/Es) = one-half opening angle = one-half angle between center lines for two openings t = t fy /fc, therefore t fc = t fy Ke = Es/fy n1 = number of openings in the compression zone = variable function of S1 = 2

2 m E s t rt = ------------------------- [ ( ) cos sin + sin ] ( 1 cos ) but Est = Est (t fc/t fy) = Es/fy t fc = Ke t fc therefore [ ( ) cos sin + sin ] S 1 = 2 m K e t rt f c -----------------------------------------------------------------------( 1 cos ) or S1 = 2m Ke t rtfc Q S2 = 2( - )t rtfy but t fy = t fc S2 = 2( - )rtt fc P = 2( - n1)rt 0.85fc = 1.7rtfc( - n1) = 1.7rtfc where = - n1 S3 = 2

r ( cos

cos )

2 m E s t rt = ------------------------- ( sin cos ) ( 1 cos ) [ sin sin ( ) cos ] = 2 m K e t rt f c ---------------------------------------------------------------------( 1 cos ) = 2m Ke t rtfc Q3 S4 = 2trtfy = 2trtfc

m E s t rtd

Sum of vertical forces must equal zero, therefore Pu = P + S3 + S4 - S1 - S2 = 1.70rtfc + 2m Ke t rtfcQ3 + 2t rtfc -

307R-9

2m Ke t rtfcQ - 2t rtfc( - ) Pu/rtfc = K1 = 1.70 + 2mKet(Q3- Q) + 2t[ - ( - )] = 1.70 + 2m Ke t Q1 + 2t 1 where = - n1 sin sin ( ) cos Q 1 = -----------------------------------------------------------------( 1 cos ) 1 = + - Ke = Es/fy t = tfy/fc S1 = 2

2

S2 = 2

t rt f y r ( cos cos )d

= 2r2t tfy ( cos sin ) = 2r2t tf y[( - )cos + sin] but tfy = tfc therefore S2 = 2r2tfctJ2 where J2 = ( - )cos + sin S3 = 2

m E s t rtd

m E s t rtd

2

2 m K e t r t f c = -----------------------------------( 1 cos )

2

2 2

2 m E s r t t = -------------------------( 1 cos )

2

2 m K e t r t f c sin 2 2 = ------------------------------------ cos 2 cos sin + -- + ------------- ( 1 cos ) 2 4 2 m K e t r t f c = ------------------------------------ ( 1 cos ) [( - )cos2 - 2cos(sin - sin) + (1/2)( - ) + (1/4)(sin 2 - sin 2)] Let J = [ ] = ( - )cos2 + 2 sin cos - 2 cos sin + (1/2)sin cos - (1/2)sin cos + (1/2)( - ) or or

2

2 m K e t r t f c = ------------------------------------ ( 1 cos ) [(1/2)( - ) + (1/4)(sin2 - sin2) - 2cos(sin - sin) + ( - )cos2] Let J3 = 2[ ]/(1 - cos)

2J = 2( + 3sin cos - 4cos sin + sin cos + ( - ) therefore S1 = m r2 tfcKe t J1 where J1 = 2J/(1 - cos) or therefore J1 = [2( + 3sin cos - 4cos sin + sin cos + ( - )]/(1 - cos) )cos2 S4 = 2

)cos2

S3 = m r2 tfcKe t J3

0 t rt f y r ( cos cos )d

2

S4 = 2r2tfctJ4

307R-10

where J4 = sin - cos For P with one opening in compression zone [Fig. 5.5.1(a)] P = 2rt0.85fc r sin ------------ r cos

2

therefore Mn/r2tfc = (Pucos/rtfc) + K2 where K2 = 1.70R + mKet(J1 + J3) + 2t(J2 + J4) or K2 = 1.70R + mKetQ2 + 2tK Q2 = [( - )(1 + 2cos2) + (1/2)(4sin2 + sin2 - sin2) - 4cos(sin + sin - sin)]/(1 - cos) P = 1.70r2tfc[sin - ( - )cos - sin] and K = sin + sin + ( - - )cos Multiply both sides of the equation by 1/K1 = rtfc/Pu rtfc/Pu Mn/r2tfc = rtfc/Pu Pucos/rtfc + 1/K1 K2 therefore K3 = Mn/Pur = cos + K2/K1 or

0 r ( cos cos ) d

For P with two openings in compression zone [Fig. 5.5.1(b)] P = 2rt0.85fc r sin ------------ r cos

+ r ( cos

cos ) d

= 1.70r2tfc[sin - cos - sin( + ) + sin( - ) + 2cos] therefore P = 1.70r2tfc[sin - ( - 2)cos - sin( + ) + sin( - ) Generalizing P = where R = sin - ( - n1)cos - (n1/2)[sin( + ) - sin( - )] and For no openings n1 = = = 0 let For one opening in compression zone n1 = 1 =0 For two openings in compression zone n1 = 2 Sum of moments about neutral axis must equal zero, therefore Mn = Purcos + P + S1 + S2 + S3 + S4 = Purcos + 1.70r2tfcR + mr2tfcKetJ1 + 2r2tfctJ2 + mr2tfcKetJ3 + 2r2tfctJ4 = Purcos + 1.70r2tfcR + mr2tfcKet(J1 + J3) + 2r2tfct(J2 + J4) 1.70r2tf

c

-<

=- Situation is the same as for no openings in the compression zone with = = R = sin - cos and all other values are the same as before. Openings in the tension zoneOpenings in the tension zone are ignored since the tensile strength of the concrete is neglected, and the bars cut by the openings are replaced at the sides of the openings. Openings in the compression zoneOpenings in the com-

307R-11

pression zone are ignored in calculations of the forces in the compression reinforcement only, since the cut bars are replaced at the sides of the openings. Vertical temperature stresses in reinforcement; effect on fy fSTV = tensile temperature stress in outside steel f =compressive temperature stress in inside steel STV fSTV and f at service loads STV 1 ---------------------- = ------------1 + 1 (1 + 1) = ratio, outside steel area to total steel area 1 1 ---------------------- = ------------(1 + 1) 1 + 1 = ratio, inside steel area to total steel area Ft(v) = load factor for temperature combined with W or E = 1.4 At ultimate, effect on fy on windward side Usable yield force = yield force - Ft(v) tensile force in outside steel + Ft(v) compressive force in inside steel Dividing by total steel area, As 1 F t ( v ) ------------- A s f STV 1 + 1 f y ( v ) = f y -------------------------------------------------------- + As

LOAD DIAGRAM 1 F t ( v ) ------------- A s f STV 1 + 1 ----------------------------------------------------------As therefore Ft(v) f y ( v ) = f y ------------- ( f STV 1 f STV ) 1 + 1 It is conservative and convenient to use the same value for fy on the leeward side as well. Vertical temperature stresses in concrete effect on fc f CTV = concrete compressive stress due to temperature alone at service loads At ultimate, effect on fc is fc(v) = fc - Ft(v) f CTV f y ( c ) = f y 1.05 f STC for combination with temperature f c ( c ) = f c 1.05 f CTC = 1 = t = 1t = ratio outside steel area to total area ratio inside steel area to outside steel area area outside steel, in. area inside steel, in.

Stress in compression steel [ ( a 1 ) ( 1 2 ) ] f CS = ------------------------------------------------ 0.003E s a 1 a 1 ( 1 2 ) f CS = ----------------------------------- 0.003 E s f y ( c ) a Stress in tensile steel 2 ( a 1 ) f TS = ----------------------------- 0.003E s a 1 (A-1)

307R-12

1 2 a f TS = --------------------- 0.003 E s f y ( c ) a Load in compression steel PCS = fCS 1t Load in tensile steel PTS = fTSt Load in concrete compression block PCB = 0.85fc(c)ta V = 0, PCB + PCS - PTS = 0 Find the value of a which satisfies this equation.

(A-2)

wall with two layers on reinforcement, are derived as follows. Unrestrained rotation caused by a temperature differential of Tx: te = te Tx /t Since rotation is prevented, strains and corresponding stresses are caused: In concrete (inside) c = tect = teTxc

(A-3)

(A-4)

(A-5) (A-6)

and f CTV = tecTxEc In outside reinforcement s = te(2 - c)t and fSTV = te(2 - c)TxEs 1 = ratio of total area of vertical outside face reinforcement to total area of concrete chimney shell at section under consideration = ratio of inside face vertical reinforcement area to outside face vertical reinforcement area ( c 1 + 2 )n f STV ------------------------------ f CTV c = te(c - 1 + 2)TxnEc For c

M about PTS, Mn = {PCB[2 - (a/2)] + PCS(22 - 1)}t MDS = Mn Mu Note: For compression on outside fy(c) = fy fc(c) = fc therefore ignore temperature. Eq. (A-3) becomes PCS = fCS t and Eq. (A-4) becomes PTS = fTS 1t APPENDIX BDERIVATION OF EQUATIONS FOR TEMPERATURE STRESSES The equations for maximum vertical stresses in concrete and steel due to a temperature drop only, across the concrete (A-7)

307R-13

= te(2 - c)TxnEct c2 + 2n1c + 2n1(2 - 1) + 2nc - 2n2 = 0 c2 + 2n(1 + 1)c + 2n[1(2 - 1) - 2] = 0 c2 + 2n(1 + 1)c - 2n[2 + 1(1 - 2)] = 0 c = -n(1 + 1) + [ n ( 1 + 1 ) ] + 2n [ 2 + 1 ( 1 2 ) ] The derivation for the equations for the maximum horizontal stresses in concrete and steel due to a temperature drop only, across the concrete wall with two layers of reinforcement, is similar to that for the vertical temperature stresses Replace with 1 with 1 f with f CTV CTC fSTV with fSTC c with c with 2 2 then f CTC = tecTxEc fSTC = te(2 - c)TxEs c = -n(1 + 1) + [ n ( 1 + 1 ) ] + 2n [ 2 + 1 ( 1 2 ) ] APPENDIX CREFERENCES 1. PCI Manual for Structural Design of Architectural Precast Concrete, Prestressed Concrete Institute, 1977. 2. PCI Design Handbook Precast and Prestressed Concrete, Prestressed Concrete Institute, 1978. 3. Warnes, C.E., Precast Concrete Connection Details for All Seismic Zones, Concrete International, V. 14, No. 11, Nov. 1992, pp. 36-44. 4. Hollister, S.C., Engineering Interpretation of Weather Bureau Records for Wind Loading on Structures, Wind Loads on Buildings and Structures, Building Science Series, No. 30, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1969, pp. 151-164. 5. Vickery, Barry J., On the Reliability of Gust Loading Factors, Wind Loads on Buildings and Structures, Building Science Series, No. 30, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1969, pp. 93-104. 6. Vickery, B. J., and Basu, R. I., Simplified Approaches to the Evaluation of the Across-Wind Response of Chimneys, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, V. 14, Amsterdam, 1985, pp. 153-166. 7. Rumman, Wadi S., Reinforced Concrete Chimneys, Handbook of Concrete Engineering, 2nd Edition, Mark Fintel, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1985, pp. 565-586. 8. Basu, R. I., Across-Wind Responses of Slender Struc2 2

tures of Circular Cross-Section to Atmospheric Turbulence, PhD thesis, Faculty of Engineering Science, University of Western Ontario, London, 1982. 9. Vickery, B. J., and Basu, R. I., Response of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys to Vortex Shedding, Engineering Structures, V. 6, No. 4, Guildford, Oct. 1984, pp. 324-333. 10. Davenport, Alan G., Gust Loading Factors, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 93, ST3, June 1967, pp. 11-34. 11. Simiu, Emil; Marshall, Richard D.; and Haber, Seymour, Estimation of Along-Wind Building Response, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 103, ST7, July 1977, pp. 1325-1338. 12. Vickery, B., Across-Wind Loading on Reinforced Concrete Chimneys of Circular Cross-Section, Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Report, BLWT-3-1993, University of Western Ontario, Dec. 1993. 13. Zdravkokvich, M. M., Review of Flow Interference Effects Between Two Cylinders in Various Arrangements, Journal of Fluids Engineering, V. 99, 1977, p. 618. 14. Vickery, B. J., and Daly, A., Wind Tunnel Modelling as a Means of Predicting the Response of Chimneys to Vortex Shedding, Engineering Structures, V. 6, No. 4, Guildford, Oct. 1984, pp. 363-368. 15. Ruscheweyh, H., Problems with In-Line Stacks: Experience with Full-Scale Objects, Engineering Structures, V. 6, No. 4, Guildford, Oct. 1984, pp. 340-343. 16. Dryden, Hugh H., and Hill, George C., Wind Pressure on Circular Cylinders and Chimneys, Research Paper No. 221, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1930. Also, NBS Journal of Research, V. 5, Sept. 1930. 17. ASCE Task Committee on Wind Forces, Wind Forces on Structures, Transactions, ASCE, V. 126, Part II, 1961, pp. 1124-1198. 18. Okamoto, T., and Yagita, M., Experimental Investigation Flow Past a Circular Cylinder of Finite Length Placed Normal to a Uniform Stream, Bulletin, Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers (Tokyo), No. 16, 1973, p. 805. 19. Task Committee on Steel Chimney Liners, Design and Construction of Steel Chimney Liners, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1975, 226 pp. 20. Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, NBS Special Publication No. 510 (ATC 3-06), Applied Technology Council/National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., June 1978, 505 pp. 21. Mokrin, Zamil A. R., and Rumman, Wadi S., Ultimate Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Members of Hollow Circular Sections Subjected to Monotonic and Cyclic Bending, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1985, pp. 653-656. 22. Rumman, Wadi S., and Sun, Ru-Tsung, Ultimate Strength Design of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 74, No. 4, Apr. 1977, pp. 179-184. 23. Hognestad, Eivind, Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete Members, Bulletin No. 399, Engineering Experiment Station, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1951, 128 pp.

ACI 307R-95 was submitted to letter ballot of the Committee and approved in accordance with ACI balloting procedures.

307R-14

Length inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .millimeter (mm). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25.4E foot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . meter (m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.3048E yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . meter (m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.9144E miles (statute) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilometer (km) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.609 Area square inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .square centimeter (cm2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.451 square foot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square meter (m2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.0929 square yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square meter (m2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.8361 Volume (capacity) ounce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic centimeter (cm3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.57 gallon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic meter (m3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.003785 cubic inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic centimeter (cm3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4 cubic foot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic meter (m3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02832 cubic yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cubic meter (m3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7646 Force kilogram-force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . newton (N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.807 kip-force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . newton (N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4448 pound-force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . newton (N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.448 Pressure or stress (force per area) kilogram-force/square meter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pascal (Pa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.807 kip-force/square inch (ksi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . megapascal (MPa). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.895 newton/square inch (N/m2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pascal (Pa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.000E pound-force/square foot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pascal (Pa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.88 pound-force/square inch (psi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilopascal (kPa). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.895 Bending moment or torque inch-pound-force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . newton-meter (Nm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1130 foot-pound-force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . newton-meter (Nm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.356 meter-kilogram-force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . newton-meter (Nm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.807 Mass ounce-mass (avoirdupois) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gram (g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.34 pound-mass (avoirdupois). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilogram (kg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4536 ton (metric) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . megagram (Mg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.000E ton (short, 2000 lbm). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . megagram (Mg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9072 Mass per volume pound-mass/cubic foot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilogram/cubic meter (kg/m3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.02 pound-mass/cubic yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilogram/cubic meter (kg/m3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5933 pound-mass/gallon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kilogram/cubic meter (kg/m3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119.8 Temperature deg Fahrenheit (F). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . deg Celsius (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tC = (tF - 32)/1.8 deg Celsius (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . deg Fahrenheit (F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tF = 1.8tC + 32

* This selected list gives practical conversion factors of units found in concrete technology. The reference source for information on SI units and more exact conversion factors is "Standard for Metric Practice" ASTM E 380. Symbols of metric tie units are given in parentheses. E Indicates that the factor given is exact. 3 3 One liter (cubic decimeter) equals 0.001 m or 1000 cm . These equations convert one temperature reading to another and include the necessary scale corrections. To convert a difference in temperature from Fahrenheit degrees to Celsius degrees, divide by 1.8 only, i.e., a change from 70 to 88 F represents a change of 18 F or 18/1.8 = 10 C deg.

- BEE Paperfinal2006colourUploaded byPrasanthPrashu
- Ground AccelerationUploaded bybobmarley20161934
- AbstractUploaded byalfredo
- Seismicassessmentofbuildingsaccordingtoeurocode8part3w Oexampleofetabs 140112124335 Phpapp02Uploaded byEddie Chan
- Advanced in Earthquake Engineering ApplicationsUploaded bymoomeejee
- Concrete Admixture CatalogueUploaded bytonni.s36
- 1-s2.0-S0143974X11001817-mainUploaded byEngr Arbab Faisal
- Earthquake EngineeringUploaded byVitor Nina
- Kalkan KunnathUploaded byMario ROSSI
- Estudio Edificio Don Tristan.pdfUploaded byesteban
- Civil Structural Design Calculations _ Cement Mill 4 .pdfUploaded byBen banquil
- Seismic Design Value Maps.pdfUploaded byHyunkyoun Jin
- Comparative Study of Various Seismic Analysis Methods for Rc StructureUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- ACI 307_1998 Chimney Design Commentary 307R_98Uploaded byaj2346
- 2015-10_acisj_Compressive Strength Unreinforced StrutsUploaded byAnonymous 8f2veZf
- Bayblend Fr3008 Hr IsoUploaded byBijesh Venugopal
- Li_BoUploaded byRey Bernales
- CourseICCE1992-BurcharthAUploaded byAlexandru Pavel
- 1.0 BEAM DESIGNUploaded byklynchelle
- Structural Reliability FrameworkUploaded bykhairur
- 331-348 Materials for the Repair and Strengthening of Concrete Structures the Influence of Material Properties on Structural Perfor v v ImpUploaded byMagdy Bakry
- The effect of silica fume and high-volume Class C fly ash.pdfUploaded byRameshNayaka
- pushover.pdfUploaded byHitesh Atri
- Full Paper MGUploaded byMarius Gruia
- Investigacion Experimental y Modelacion de Llaves de Corte vertical Entre Paneles PrefabricadosUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- Duaso Elements.pdfUploaded byCatherine Platon
- Alkhrdaji_ACI 562_Design Strength Limints.pdfUploaded byeros
- Design of RC Structural Elements for ShearUploaded byVasu Dharmar
- s40069-013-0032-5Uploaded byAmer Hassan
- Alkhrdaji_ACI 562_Design Strength LimintsUploaded byeros

- SECCIÓN 100 SUELOS_FACTORES DE CONVERSIÓN DE UNIDADES_2.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-169-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-168-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-181-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-159-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-180-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-164-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-161-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-182-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-163-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-162-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-170-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- IntroducciónUploaded byLuis Eduardo Cabarcas
- INV E-172-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-165-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-158-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-146-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-156-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-150-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-153-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-151-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- Norma Inv E-142-13 (Ensayo Modificado de Compactación)Uploaded byStevén Jovel
- INV E-152-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-143-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-141-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-136-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-157-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-154-2013Uploaded byJorge Camelo
- INV E-148-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON
- INV E-133-13.pdfUploaded byDIDIER ANGEL LOPEZ RINCON

- Full Elementary Aerodynamics Course by MITUploaded by34plt34
- Bfc 21103 Tutorial 15 DecUploaded byYumi Kumiko
- Construction of the Foundation for a Grain WarehouseUploaded byRex Makarov
- Files in RacksUploaded byVipan Kumar
- 1 7 wsp job advertisementUploaded byapi-318284199
- 90 Degree v Notch Weir Discharge TableUploaded byGeni D. Sudarmo
- CE 620 - Final ExamUploaded bySantiago Bustos
- Field Measurements of Annular Pressure and Temperature During Primary CementingUploaded byDoni Kurniawan
- Out-Eng-004297-Cost Evaluation RV0#034- Additional Post Tension Work to BRI-04 p15, p16 Beams(10.04.2018)Uploaded byRaymond Payne
- chapter27.pdfUploaded byhany
- TB-Lecture02-Structural-Types.pdfUploaded bySaeed Khawam
- Large Diameter PipeUploaded byWee Hoong Kok
- Analysis and Design of Disturbed Regions in Concrete StructuresUploaded byMarkoGlamuzina
- 2276-10022-1-PBUploaded bylrbs3083
- Effect of Oscillations on Airfoils in Close Proximity to the GroundUploaded byVyssion
- Comflor_composite_floor_deck_brochure_UK.pdfUploaded byducke
- Designing Pre Engineered StructureUploaded bySachin Shinde
- atv_m_143_e_pt1Uploaded byMehmet Emre Bastopcu
- Assignment With Solution Properties of SoilUploaded byJustin Carlo Domingo
- World Pipelines Dec 14 - Specialised Services in AustraliaUploaded byUyavie Obonna
- Dreno Horizontal Profundo Manual -787.1Uploaded bypatricioalonso
- Aashto-h20,Hs20 & Hl93 LoadingUploaded bysmartman35
- Bending Stiffness and Neutral Axis Depth Variation of High Strength Concrete Beams in Seismic Hazardous Areas Experimental InvestigationUploaded byArjun Mullu
- Part 1A - Topographic Surveys.docUploaded bynirajlamichhane
- 09 Chapter 26Uploaded bySrikar Avr
- Structural Miscellaneous RefresherUploaded byJaron Basilio
- Drill92 Inflate BasicsUploaded byyulianto_dp
- Maurer Seismic Protection IIUploaded byKaren BZ
- 1169-010Uploaded bySumeet Kumar Sinha
- WP11_2016_MRR No 192_All_RE103071_V6_070916Uploaded byAk Kun Full