You are on page 1of 0


CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001

Vol. 17, No. 2 September 2001
P.E. Freathy (Editor) - N.R. Bierrum - B.N. Pritchard - D.T. Smith - M. Beaumont

EDITORIAL .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
FUTURE CICIND MEETINGS .................................................................................................................................................... 3
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
VIRTUAL WORLD ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
PROFILES OF THE GOVERNING BODY ............................................................................................................................... 6
REPORT ON CICIND's 55th MEETING IN ANTALYA ......................................................................................................... 8
PRESIDENTS AWARD 2001 .................................................................................................................................................. 10
REPORT FROM THE GOVERNING BODY .......................................................................................................................... 11
COMMITTEE ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................................................................ 12
1. Seismic load reduction factors for reinforced concrete chimneys: a probabilistic assessment
- J.L. Wilson ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13
2. A challenging chimney retrofit project for a steel producing company in Ontario, Canada
- A. Bhowmik ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24
3. Long-term behaviour of reinforced concrete industrial chimneys in Romania and
a retrofit solution for the No 2 chimney of the Isalnita-Craiova power plant
- L. Naum, D. Furis ............................................................................................................................................................ 29
4. ACI 307-98 and CICIND 2001. Comparison of in-line wind loads and reinforcement
- N.R. Bierrum .................................................................................................................................................................... 33
5. Steel stacks for gas turbines
- N. Ferlic ............................................................................................................................................................................. 36
CICIND PUBLICATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 42
CICIND COMMITTEES .............................................................................................................................................................. 43
ORGANISATIONS REPRESENTED IN CICIND .................................................................................................................. 44
INDEX TO TECHNICAL PAPERS IN CICIND REPORT ..................................................................................................... 47
ABOUT CICIND .......................................................................................................................................................................... 52

CICIND REPORT is published by CICIND, Zurich, Switzerland
ISSN 1013-0489
Office of the Secretary
CICIND, 14 The Chestnuts, Beechwood Park, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire HP3 0DZ, England
Telephone - National 01442 211204, International +44 1442 211204
Fax - National 01442 256155, International +44 1442 256155
email -
Printed in England
Articles and papers published in CICIND REPORT represent the views of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by CICIND.
CICIND is not, nor are any of its members, to be held responsible for any failure alleged or proved to be due to adherence to
recommendations or acceptance of information published by the Association.
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Sydney, Australia
March 2002
This issue of CICIND Report brings details of your new
Governing Body, elected at the NGA in Antalya in April this
year. Updated profiles of each member are provided and, before
that, a message from our new President, John Sowizal. John has
had a distinguished career in industrial chimneys in the US,
rising to senior levels within Custodis before staring his own
consultancy business and, more recently, taking the role of
President of G&H Acoustics in the US. His enthusiasm for
CICIND is evident in his message and this will continue to drive
CICIND forward, especially within North America but also
world-wide. The new Councillors of the Governing Body will
bring their fresh thoughts to bear and we look forward to hearing
from members about their vision for CICIND.
Technical Papers
This issue of CICIND Report is a little slimmer than some in the
recent past, reflecting two things. The first is that the Editorial
Board does take its job seriously and we strive to maintain a
high standard of published work, upon which CICINDs
reputation depends. This means that we do reject some papers
as being unsuitable, while we ask for modifications or
clarifications to others. The second reason for the smaller
number of papers is that authors are simply not providing the
papers for us to review. We have normally been able to rely on
those who present papers at the technical meetings following
that up with a written paper. Individual cases all have valid
reasons for not doing so, I am sure, but collectively it does leave
us with a shortfall and I urge all members to both contribute
presentations and to provide written papers.
I should also mention that having a paper published in CICIND
Report is a useful method for advertising your expertise. This is
valuable for academic members, because this is a refereed
journal, and is also a marketing benefit to commercial members.
We do sell a number of reprints of papers each year and even
showcase selected papers on the web site. The sales show that
professionals outside CICIND do look at our web site and do
review our publications list.
New Publications
By the time you receive this issue of CICIND Report you will
have already received copies of the revised Model Code for
Concrete Chimneys, Part A - The Shell, its associated
Commentaries and also the Manual for Thermofluodynamic
Design of Chimneys and Chimney Liners. Also in progress are
the Metallic Materials Manual, which we expect to start
typesetting very soon, and the Seals Manual, which should also
be close to completion.
Revisions to Parts B & C of the Concrete Code and also to the
Customers Guide to Specifying Chimneys are also being
considered. It is most encouraging to see the level of activity
that CICIND members support and maintain, despite the
commercial pressures on them. That is what makes CICIND
strong and relevant nearly 30 years after its inception.
CICIND Chimney Design Handbook
Many of you will already be aware that we are currently
preparing an update to the excellent book written by Geoff
Pinfold many years ago. The scope has been widened to include
both concrete and steel chimney construction, together with the
ancillary subjects that cont ribute to a complete design including
wind, environmental concerns, seismic actions, etc. Geoff
Pinfold has kindly agreed to act as Editor of the book and has
persuaded many of our experienced members to contribute a
chapter. It will be published under the CICIND banner and the
royalties will flow to CICIND. All of those involved are
contributing a great deal to our cause in terms of their time and
experience and we should all be grateful to them. First drafts
are due to be with Geoff shortly so that the book can be
published next year.

As this issue was being completed we learned of the dreadful
attacks in America, only a couple of days before the meeting in
Krakow. More eloquent words than mine have been said and
printed about these events but perhaps it is worth reminding
ourselves about the value of the international cooperation and
understanding promoted by organisations such as CICIND.
Future CICIND Meetings

Dates shown are subject to the agreement of local organisers. Check your circular letters or the web site.
Cairo, Egypt
Sept/Oct 2002
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Presidents Message
Since this is my first chance to address the full membership of
CICIND I would like to thank you all for giving me the
opportunity to lead this important organisation in chimney
design and construction. It is an honour to serve you as
President of CICIND.
It has been quite some years since I was first given a copy of
CICIND Report shortly after I started work in my career as a
chimney engineer. I was impressed at the depth of the
technical detail and the apparently complicated design issues.
It seemed much more complicated than I first thought in
accepting the position. It was truly a humbling experience. To
those new chimney engineers in a similar position who happen
to read my comments, let me say that it has been very
interesting and enjoyable to study the chimney structural
design theory as well as the many aspects of wind and seismic
design. The opportunity to study past successes as well as
failures has benefited my professional growth as well as saved
my employer from the cost of repeating past errors and has
helped improve their products by taking advantage of good
new ideas.
Reflecting back over the many CICIND meetings I have
attended in these past years, I have enjoyed the many technical
presentations as well as the coffee and lunch break small group
discussions which made me think and stirred my mind to learn
more. The business friendships resulting from my
participation have enriched both my professional and my
personal life. Knowledge I learned in researching, writing and
presenting papers has greatly furthered my career as well as
providing visibility and a knowledge base of the firms that
supported the p aper development.
I hope that instead of just reading the CICIND Report, Model
Codes and literature you will study them and learn how you
can add to the chimney engineering knowledge of your firm. I
hope that you meet with your manager to discuss the value of
your attendance at our meetings in order to enrich your
professional development as well as that of your company.
Our codes are far more advanced than when I picked up the
first CICIND literature. Our Model Codes provide excellent
information to safely design, build and maintain chimneys but
they will be much better if you decide to actively participate,
share your knowledge and take the time to study the design
methods and challenge the committees to make the codes even
better and safer.
I look forward to seeing new members and especially new
guests who are most welcome at the coming meetings. Come,
participate and make your opinions count.
Thank you for letting me share my viewpoint with you and
please let me know your opinions
J ohn Sowi zal
Arab Company for Ceramic Products
Tel: +202 469 8516, 469 8260, 468 2938
Fax: +202 469 8304

Producers for:

anti acid and heat resistant masonry bricks used for power
plants and flue liners
(including standard and special shapes)
acid resistant mortar
chemical resistant bricks

Our sister company:
Tel: +202 267 0867 Fax: +202 469 8304

Executors for:

construction of flue liners for power plants, cement, petroleum, steel & ceramic
paving floor for chemical & petrochemical factories
lining work of sewage tunnels
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Virtual World
Members Only
One key development is the creation of a members area to the
site. Accessible only with a username and password, this will
give access to an up -to-date version of the Members Directory
that can be searched by name, company, town or country.
Updated more frequently, this will be a useful addition to the
annually printed paper Directory.
Also available in the new members pages are a download
page, where copies of CICIND documents may be obtained,
and also a discussion area, where questions and comments may
be posted for others to respond to. One objective of this area is
to provide web space that Committee Chairmen can use to post
information about their committee work and also to post draft
documents for download. Whilst there is no plan to stop the
production of paper copies, these facilities will undoubtedly
make it easier for members to communicate quickly across t he
Of course, some of this information is quite valuable. The
contacts list alone has value for people trying to sell their
products to you. That is why we need to protect this area with
a username and password system. Any paid-up member can
obtain one by completing the online form and notifying the

The graph below shows usage of the CICIND web site, which
continues to attract more than 300 visits per month most of the
time. A dip in activity from May onwards, seems to have been
reversed, perhaps because of the approaching technical meeting
in Krakow. Also many improvements that have taken place to
the site should increase traffic. Since the last issue of CICIND
REPORT we have subscribed to a service that aims to submit
sites to search engines and to improve the likelihood of a good
listing. Hopefully the benefits will be seen in coming months.
Number of distinct sites served
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
John Sowizal
John is a United States citizen. He has
been an active member of CICIND since
1991 and was elected to the Governing
Body in 1999. John is a member of the
steel liner and metallic linings CICIND
committees. John is active in a number of United States codes
including ACI 307 committee on Concrete Chimneys, ASME
STS-1 committee on Steel Stacks, ASTM committee on Brick
Liners and ASCE committee on Steel Chimney Linings. John
is President of G&H Acoustics, LLC and his firm designs and
supplies industrial noise control equipment especially for gas
turbine power plant exhaust system inlets and chimneys. After
graduating with a Structural Engineering degree from the
University of Illinois at Chicago, John joined Custodis
Construction Company as a project engineer for concrete and
steel chimneys. During the period that John worked with
Custodis, he held various positions in engineering and
management including Vice President of Engineering, Product
Manager and Vice President and General Manager. John is
married to Kitty Krambaer and they live in Annapolis,
Maryland, USA.

Terry Smith
Terry is a British citizen but has lived in
Italy since 1979. He joined CICIND as a
member in 1990, was elected to the
Governing body in 1997 and Vice
President in 2001. Terry first became involved with chimneys
and silos when working as a site engineer for Oscar Faber and
Partners in 1966. Joining Tileman & Co. in 1969, he specialised
in chimney design and construction. He is a chartered civil
engineer, qualified as a Eur. Ing. and obtained the Diploma of
Imperial College in Concrete Structures and Technology in
1973. During his time in Italy he has been Managing Director
of Tileman Italia, Technical Director for Recchi Energy, and
General Manager of HAMON Custodis. He is now General
Manager of HAMON Mariani Battista and based in Milan.
Terry is married to Harriet and has two grown up daughters.

Gangolf Stegh
Gangolf is a German citizen. After
graduating in Engineering in 1975, he
joined the company OOMS-ITTNER
where he was responsible for the project
management of chimney projects.
Through the expansion of the company, with the takeover of
Franz HOF, Gangolf became a member of the Board and has
held the position of Managing Director of OOMS-ITTNER-
HOF GmbH since 1995. OOMS-ITTNER-HOF is one of the
leading companies in the fields of engineering and execution of
chimney and refractory lining projects.
Gangolf is also a board member of the following National
Committees for Chimney and Refractory Linings, the
Bundesfachabteilung Schornstein - und Feuerungsbau and the
Deutsche Gesellschaft Schornstein - und Feuerungsbau, where
he is also Chairman of the working group responsible for
Research and Development.
Gangolf lives with his wife Hannelore and daughter Jenny -
"links Rheinisch" just outside Cologne.

Jos del Solar Bermejo
Jos is a Spanish citizen and joined
CICIND in 1980. He graduated in 1971 as
Civil Engineer from Escuela Tcnica
Superior de Ingenieros de Caminos,
Canales y Puertos, University of Madrid.
In 1971 he joined AGROMAN, where he was responsible for
the project management and design of major civil structures in
the Civil Engineering Project Department. In 1979 he was
appointed Technical Manager of KARMAN Tcnicas
Especiales S.A. and committed to a one-year stay by
KARRENA GmbH in Dsseldorf. Since 1980 he is involved in
the field of design, construction and repair of concrete and steel
chimneys. In 1985 he was appointed General Manager of
KARMAN, continuing to be responsible for design,
construction and repair of chimneys, and in 1999 he was
simultaneously appointed General Manager of BYGGING
Jos is married to Carmen Serrano Verdes-Montenegro and
they have a daughter and son.

Bill Nye
Bill Nye is a British citizen. He joined
CICIND in 1998 and was elected to the
Governing Body in 2001. He graduated
with a Civil Engineering Degree from the
University of Bradford. Bill has spent
most of his working life managing construction companies.
Besides his experience in the U.K. he was for some years a
Director of International Construction Companies based in the
Middle and Far East. He was appointed Managing Director of
Bierrum in 1998.
Bill is married to Jane and they have a daughter and two sons.

CICINDs Governing Body

At the NGA in Antalya a new Governing Body was elected to serve for a period of 2 years. This year there were many changes,
with the retirement of our President and Vice-President as well as 4 Councillors. This new blood, led by t he new President and
remaining Councillors, will be well placed to guide CICIND through the next period and help it develop further.
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Peder Andersen
Peder is a Danish citizen. He joined
CICIND as a member in 1993. Peder
graduated with a B.Sc. in mechanical
engineering in 1974 and has been
employed as an Engineer from 1974-1981 in Denmark and
foreign countries. Peder founded Steelcon Chimney A/S in
Esbjerg on 1 December 1981 and has been the company's
Managing Director since that date. During 1975-1985 Peder
obtained a Diploma in Economics as well as in Strategy and
Organisation. Over the last few years, Steelcon has become the
largest and leading supplier of factory-made steel chimneys in
Peder is married and has a grown up son and daughter.

Michael Beaumont
Michael is a British citizen. He is the
fourth generation of a family that can
trace its history back for 125 years in
steeplejacking and steel chimneys.
Having left college he worked in all
departments of the business but had a preference for site related
activities and worked all over the UK and the world before
taking up management duties. He brings good practical, hands-
on experience to the CICIND Governing Body.
He attended a number of CICIND meetings prior to becoming a
member. As a member, he has played an active role on the Steel
Chimneys Committee and is also a member of the Metallic
Materials Committee. Apart from his work with CICIND he is
a member of CEN/TC297 and is involved with the steel
chimney and liner working groups, reporting to the BSI on
progress. He is further involved with the training of operatives
and a UK trade association.
Michael lives with his partner Irene in the west of England.

Paul Freathy
Paul is a British citizen. He runs a
consultancy business in wind loading,
environmental effects and construction
product performance, PF Consultants.
Previous work experience includes many
years at WS Atkins Consulting Engineers, a spell with the
Structures Department at BT and being Head of Product Design
and Performance at Redland Technology. He is an Executive
Committee Member of the UK Wind Engineering Society and
Chairman of their Strategy Committee.
Paul was appointed Secretary in 1998. He is married to Lin and
lives in Hertfordshire, England.
Performance &quality guaranteed

For gas turbine power plants we provide stacks, silencers,
inlet filter systems, weather and diverter dampers.
For FGD power plants we provide a full line of dampers built
from high alloy and/or carbon steels to suit the environment.
Supplied complete with effective controls systems and circuits
to control and monitor performance.
Worldwide distribution for FGD and gas turbine power plants
We provide engineered solutions based on more than 40
years of indus trial and power plant noise control engineering,
material development and construction to high quality
standards and combined with local fabrication capability to
provide cost effective products.
A Groupe Vinci Construction company.
G&H Efficient Damper Designs
The leading supplier of high quality resonator FGD silencers
John Sowizal, President
G&H Acoustics, LLC
1419 Forest Dr., Suite 205
Annapolis,MD 21403-1473
Phone: +1(410) 990 4840
Fax: +1(410) 990 4841
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
a requirement for two separate stacks but no space for separate
foundations a creative solution was needed. The one adopted
was to re-use the bottom portion of the existing stack and build
two D-shaped stacks on the upper portion. This presented
some interesting problems of gas flow and stresses. Also in
this session, Norbert Ferlic presented case studies of the design
of hot stack-bypass systems, highlighting the design issues
associated with the thermal shocks arising from rapid start and
stop cycles. In between theses papers we received reports from
Bill Plant and Bill Evans on the progress of their committee
work on metallic materials and seals, respectively.
After lunch on the terrace our President, Roger Bierrum,
presented a comparison of ACI 307-98 with CICIND 2001.
Differences in the calculation of inline loads mean that ACI
gives up to 25% greater bending moment than CICIND even
though the load factors are smaller. This could be particularly
significant for foundation design, which is based on unfactored
loads. Comparisons of vertical reinforcement requirements
show the two codes to be similar but ACI requires rather less
circumferential reinforcement, which gives durability
problems to smaller RC chimneys.
Seismic design
Most of the remainder of the day was taken up with a subject
of great interest in Turkey - earthquake design. Two
presentations on the use of capacity design principles were
presented by Michael Angelides and Valeriu Rosetnic.
Angelides shows that capacity design methods can lead to high
foundation design loads for stiff structures. Rosetnic showed,
with examples, the importance of selecting the position of the
plastic hinge in capacity design. We then witnessed an
excellent presentation by Sami Kilic of Bogazici University,
who made full use of modern computer presentation
techniques to illustrate his report on a study into the collapse
of a 115m stack during the Kocaeli earthquake. He concluded
that one of the principal reasons for the failure was the
inadequacy of the splices in the rebars around a duct opening.
The first day was rounded off by an impromptu presentation of
a camera inspection system for use with the stack online. A
gap had arisen due to the unfortunate absence through ill
health of Professor Erdik. Serguei Souchtchev stepped into the
breech very well and gave an interesting case study of the
cameras use.
CICINDs 55th meeting was held in Turkey during April 2001
at the Mediterranean resort of Antalya. CICIND had been there
before, in 1994, but there should have been no worries about
returning. Those who joined the previous meeting were just as
impressed the second time around, while the new visitors were
able to discover it anew.
The first impression
of the area would, for
many, have been the
short plane trip from
Istanbul descending
over the mountains
for a bumpy final
approach. Our hotel
was close to the coast
and was a splendid
location for our
meeting. Built around an impressive, full-height atrium with
glass, scenic lifts it gave a good impression even as we walked
through the door. Our hosts, Tamer Tunca and his colleagues
had worked hard to make this a successful meeting and they
managed to do so with a personal touch that was most
welcoming. Successfully organising good weather also helped!
The meeting opened with a cocktail reception and canaps on
the mezzanine level of the hotel overlooking the atrium on one
side and outdoors on the other. The meeting was well attended,
which made for a lively gathering catching up with old
acquaintances and making new ones. The opportunity to relax
was particularly welcomed by those who had spent the day in
committee meetings and the group dissipated only slowly, with
many then going off in groups for dinner.
Technical meeting
The technical meeting commenced next morning with a good
level of attendance. The programme had developed over the
previous weeks into a very full and varied one, with a range of
both well-known CICIND contributors and new faces, including
some local speakers who were most welcome. This interaction
with the engineering and scientific community must be one of
the most important aspects of CICIND.
The meeting opened with two papers concerning the wind
loading of chimneys and comparisons with other codes and with
measured results. The first was the inaugural CICIND
presentation by the Secretary, Paul Freathy, who showed the
results of comparison calculations using both CICIND and the
proposed Eurocode. These indicate that Eurocode gives
somewhat higher loads for downwind response and, although
there are differences in assumed turbulence for different terrain
types this is not sufficient to explain the greater loads. For cross-
wind response the situation is reversed, with CICIND giving
conservative results that provide a safe design whereas the
Eurocode results often underpredict measured results, making
them unsafe. This is an important issue for the future direction
of CICIND Model Codes and the topic was taken further by the
second paper of Henk van Koten who presented results in
support of the higher crosswind loads predicted by CICIND in
comparison with measured data. The DIN code was shown to
be unsafe in some cases. This is a matter to be discussed and
resolved in the wind committee, with technical papers for
CICIND Report to follow.
After the break, Arun Bhomik presented a case history of the
replacement of a corroded steel stack serving two boilers. With
Report on CICINDs 55th meeting in Antalya, Turkey
An attentive audience for Bill Plant and Josef Lettner
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Day 2
The following day commenced with a comparison of the
performance of a chimney in an extreme earthquake event.
John Wilson used a probabilistic approach to establish a
probability density function of seismic loading which was
overlaid with that for the resistance of the chimney. A
comparison of the overlapping probability of failure using
existing and proposed code provisions showed how the use
of limited ductility in the design significantly reduced the
probability of failure.
Continuing the theme, Professor Aydogan of Istanbul
Technical University presented a summary of building
failures during the recent Turkish earthquakes, with
suggested remedies. Bill Plant, Doug Heath and Josef
Lettner then spoke on the benefits of using clad-plate linings
to reduce the potential for failure in earthquakes. The
wallpaper technique was shown to be cost-effective and also
to have survived an earthquake in Taiwan with only minor
New member Laurentiu Naum authored a paper with
Professor Furis, which was presented by a colleague,
summarising the performance of reinforced concrete
chimneys in Romania. The repair of a particular 200m
chimney was described. This led nicely to our final
presentation by Paul Arckless and Gary Eastman concerning
repairs to five concrete chimneys in Turkey. This practical
discussion of repairing chimneys while they remain online
brought the meeting to an interesting conclusion.
Social programme
O u r h o s t s
o r g a n i s e d a
couple of splendid
tours for the ladies
on Thursday and
Friday, plus one
for everyone on
Saturday. The
principal feature
of the Ladies
Thursday tour was
a visit to the
Manavgat Falls.
This was followed
by a shopping
expedition at which various art and craft skills were
displayed in a fashion show. Thursday evening also saw the
formal dinner at a restaurant close to the hotel.
Farewell remarks by the outgoing President
After the meal, outgoing President Roger Bierrum said a few
words of farewell. He noted that he was one of the few
remaining members who could claim to have been at the first
International Chimney Symposium held in Edinburgh in
1973. At that time, rising fuel costs and new clean air
regulations had led to a reduction in operating temperatures
and a flood of resulting problems. Professor Hank Hancox
of Glasgow arranged a meeting of chimney users, builders
and designers, expecting that perhaps 20-30 would attend.
He was staggered to find that there were, in fact, about 150
delegates, causing an embarrassment of riches to the
organisers which had to be spent on entertainment! A malt
whiskey tasting was arranged to take care of that. CICIND,
which grew from this first meeting, could hardly have had a
better start!
The President then thanked his forgiving audience and took the
opportunity to congratulate Mr. Tunca and his colleagues for
their hard work in making the meeting such a success. The
traditional CICIND thank you of an engraved silver salver was
present ed in recognition of a job well done
Bonus event
As a bonus, we were offered the chance to sample an evening of
traditional Turkish food, music and dancing on Friday evening
and, to nobodys surprise, there were plenty of takers. We sat
out on the terrace and enjoyed plenty of good food and wine
whilst appreciating the talents of the belly dancer. Perhaps
overcome by the occasion (or was it the wine), several of our
party felt the urge to have a go themselves. Mrs. Stegh was a
particularly fine dancer while perhaps the best that could be said
of the male members of our party is that they were enthusiastic!
At the amphitheatre in Demre
Stack Design Software
Self Supported (STACKDES)
Graphical Interface
ASME STS-1-2000
Wind per ASCE 7
Complete Analysis Output
Vortex Induced Response
Metric and English Units
Guy Wire Supported (GUYDES)
All features of STACKDESplus
Determine worst direction for wind
Check stack/guys for Hot & Cold
Guy Wire Supported (GUYDES)
All features of STACKDESplus
Determine worst direction for wind
Check stack/guys for Hot & Cold
Supporting Spreadsheets
ASCE 7-98/95/93 Wind
Anchor bolt chair/Base Plate
Guy Wire Hardware
Conical Transitions
Roarks Plate and Ring
Structural Plate Flange
Amphitheatre at Demre
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
All will be pleased to know that my photographs of the occasion
did not come out well enough to publish here.
And so, finally, to the Saturday tour which took us to some
interesting ancient sites. These included an amphitheatre and
some unusual tombs excavated directly into the rock face at
Demre, about 25km West of Finike. We also visited an ancient
church, with floor mosaics and wall paintings. All this after the
Secretary had triumphed with another first. Having arranged
the first CICIND visit to a tractor fest in Austria, the
entertainment on this occasion was the arrest of our coach driver
for speeding! After many minutes arguing, the driver lost his
battle with the policemen and continued the journey as a very
unhappy man. All part of the service!
The President, Roger Bierrum, giving the 2001 Presidents
Award to Ray Warren of Warren Environment, Inc., Atlanta ,
GA, USA. Ray has been an active member of CICIND for
many years, carrying the torch for CICIND in the USA and
being an exemplary ambassador on our behalf. In Rays case
the word active means exactly that. He was President of
CICIND from 1993 to 1994 and has played an important part
in the deliberations of the Governing Body both before and
since. He has been equally influential in the many CICIND
committees that he has contributed to. Ray is a man of strong
opinions, never afraid to offer them but always with good
humour and often to good effect.
Ray and his wife Doris have attended and supported many
CICIND meetings, contributing to the fun and enjoyment of
the events. Antalya was no exception.
The President warmly thanked Ray for his contribution to
CICIND and expressed the hope that he will continue to guide
us in years to come.
Presidents Award, 2001
Unscheduled entertainment courtesy of the Turkish
traffic police
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
The Governing Body has met once since the last edition of
CICIND Report was published; in Antalya, Turkey (April 2001)
at the technical meeting described elsewhere in this issue. The
following notes provide an update on their discussions. As
always, the Governing Body would welcome contributions to
their debates from members. This can be done by contacting the
Secretary or any GB member.
Research proposals
In the last issue, the lack of suitable proposals was discussed and
I am pleased to say that we now have two proposals concerning
further work on the seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete
chimneys. One takes an experimental approach, while the other
proposes computational analysis. Both are actively under
consideration by the Governing Body and it is hoped that at
least one project will be approved fro support for this year. Of
course, there are many other topics that we could consider
supporting and the Governing Body welcomes any suitable
proposals. If you dont ask, you dont get!
CICIND subscriptions
You will be aware from the report of the NGA and from
Circular Letters that subscription rates will be increased from 1
January 2002. This is the first rise for more than 10 years,
which represents a very good track record for the growth and
management of CICIND. The Governing Body continues to
There were 30 members present at the NGA and the Secretary
had 7 notified proxy votes, giving a quorum for the meeting.
The following report covers the main discussions and
decisions taken during the meeting - Minutes have been sent to
all members for their records.

Presidents Report
Outgoing President, Roger Bierrum, noted that CICINDs
most important activities are publications, research and
meetings. It was encouraging to see these activities continuing
so strongly. During the year the Concrete Code Part A and its
Commentaries, as well as the TFD Code had been completed
and progress was made with the Metallic Materials Manual.
He remarked that it had been an honour to serve as CICIND
President and thanked members for their support before
wishing his successor well for the future.
Secretary's Reports
The Secretary noted that member numbers had fallen slightly
during the year, reflecting the economic conditions. However,
moves were needed to maintain a continued influx of new
members. CICINDs financial reserves remained at an
acceptable level but the annual expenditure was now
outstripping income so that action was required. Indeed, the
2001 budget, approved by the meeting, showed a deficit.
Costs were being targeted, especially printing, but the
Governing Body was forced to recommend the first increase in
subscriptions for more than 10 years. This motion was
Changes to Statutes
The meeting approved 5 minor changes to the Statutes,
reflecting the changes to subscriptions and some
administrative changes concerning the notification of proxy
votes and the use of electronic communication. These changes
were subsequently printed in a revised booklet and were
circulated to all members.
Messrs. Clark Brownscombe were reappointed as Auditors.
In the elections for officers of CICIND the following were
John Sowizal - President
Terry Smith - Vice President
Peder Andersen - Councillor
Michael Beaumont - Councillor
Bill Nye - Councillor
Jose del Solar - Councillor
The Editorial Board for CICIND Report was confirmed as
Messrs. Freathy, Bierrum, Beaumont, Pritchard and Smith.
As the incoming President was unable to be present at the
meeting, the new Vice President took the chair following the
elections. He thanked Roger Bierrum for his contribution to
CICIND during his 4-year term and presented him with a
token of our thanks, a pair of silver champagne flutes.
Report from the Governing Body
Report of the Normal General Assembly
27 April, 2001 - Antalya, Turkey
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
take this very seriously and I am pleased to say that the initial
indications are that the measures we have taken to reduce the
cost of our core activities are working. As always, the other
side to this equation is to increase membership or the sale of
other products. New Codes and Manuals are in production to
help in this and we are actively searching for new areas in
which to promote CICIND.
New Publications
The GB has recommended that Parts B & C of the Concrete
Code and the Customers Guide to Specifying Chimneys should
be reviewed and updated where necessary. Volunteers to help
in this process will be sought by the Secretary but please, if
you have an interest, dont wait to be asked!
In addition, the preparation of a new book is progressing well
under the guidance of Editor Geoff Pinfold.
Metallic Materials - Chairman Bill Plant reports that progress
continues with the preparation of the Metallic Materials Manual.
Sections of the Manual are being developed in loose-leaf form
for ease of updating and to permit publication in part rather than
await total completion. This is particularly pertinent in that as
the potential benefits of the manual as a reference work become
increasingly apparent, additional proposals have been made. As
an example, work has now commenced on a section entitled
Low Temperature Applications.
The intention of the meeting of the Metallic Materials
Committee in Krakow will be to finalise as many sections as
possible to permit formal Governing Body approval to be gained
and enable publication to commence.
Seals - There remains only one section of this manual to be
completed and it is hoped that it will be possible to start
preparing the document for publication in the new year.
Concrete Chimneys - Revisions to Part A of the Code and the
Commentaries regarding crack width and seismic design are
currently being printed and should have been circulated to
members prior to distribution of this edition of CICIND Report.
Thermofluodynamics - The TFD Code is currently being
printed with circulation to members planned for late September.
Wind loading - Following the comparative calculations carried
out by the Secretary and Mr Pritchard there remains a difference
of opinion within the committee about the suitability of the
Eurocode wind model. Further calculations and discussions are
needed to resolve this.
Maintenance - Chairman John Turner has reported that he
intends to circulate a first draft of the maintenance booklet to the
committee, hopefully before the Krakow meeting, to enable
responses to be made. He has also signalled his intention to take
advantage of the CICIND website to extend the boundaries of
his committee in order to elicit responses from the wider
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Current code recommendations for the aseismic design of tall
reinforced concrete chimneys in regions of high seismicity are
generally non conservative and result in brittle and expensive
chimneys. The design requirements needed for a chimney to be
designated moderately ductile have been investigated both
experimentally and analytically [1,2]. It has been demonstrated
that chimneys designed for moderate ductility result in cheaper
windshields and foundations and improved performance under
extreme earthquake events. A moderately ductile chimney has
the important characteristic that the acceleration to cause
failure is in excess of four times the elastic design acceleration
(i.e. a
). This observation has been translated into
practical aseismic design recommendations suitable for codes
of practice. The selection of a suitable structural response
factor or global ductility factor which satisfies both the
serviceability and structural stability limit states has previously
been reported using deterministic techniques [1,2].
This paper presents a probabilistic approach to compare the
performance of a chimney designed using existing and
proposed code provisions to an extreme earthquake event. The
seismic hazard will be represented by a Weibull distribution
relating a peak effective ground acceleration to a return period,
from which a probability density function for seismic loading
can be developed. The structural resistance will be expressed
by a Normal or Gaussian distribution. Numerical integration
techniques will be used to compare the probability of failure
values calculated for the different designs.
2.1 Design philosophy and performance levels
The seismic design philosophy t raditionally adopted around the
world has been to ensure life safety at the ultimate limit state,
defined with a return period of 475 years which is equivalent to
a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (10/50). In
addition a damageability limit state criteria is specified so that
earthquakes that could be expected during the life of the
structure do not result in excessive damage. These limit states
have been to date the philosophy of the Uniform Building Code
[3] of the USA. Following damaging earthquakes in 1989
(Loma Prieta), 1994 (Northridge) and 1995 (Kobe) which
included significant damage to code compliant buildings,
greater emphasis has been placed on the development of
performance based codes.
The 1997 NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings - FEMA 273 [4] recommends up to four performance
levels consisting of:
(a) Operational performance level: 50% exceedance in 50
years (50/50) or return period of 72 years.
(b) Immediate occupancy performance level: 20/50 or 225
year return period.
(c) Life Safety performance level: 10/50 or 475 year return
(d) Collapse prevention performance level: 2/50 or 2475 year
return period.
These mean return periods are typically rounded to 75, 225,
500 and 2500 years respectively.
The performance levels recommended in FEMA 273 are
consistent with the three limit states outlined by Paulay [5]
consisting of:
(a) Serviceability Limit State - SLS
(b) Damage control or damageability limit state - DLS
(c) Survival or structural stability limit state - SSLS
The SLS is generally associated with no damage requiring
repair and no interference to the operation of the facility.
Adequate stiffness and strength should be available so that
displacements are controlled and the response is essentially
elastic. Hairline cracking of concrete may result but significant
reinforcement yielding or concrete crushing should be
prevented. The DSL is generally associated with damage that
is repairable. Such damage may involve epoxy grouting cracks
and locally replacing damaged concrete. The SSLS is
associated with extreme ground shaking with the emphasis
placed on the prevention of collapse and loss of life. It is
expected that the structure would be severely damaged
following large inelastic deformations however the residual
strength would be sufficient to support the gravity loads.
The acceptable risk associated with each limit state depends on
the relative importance and design life of the structure. For
building structures the return periods associated with the SLS,
DLS and SSLS are typically 75, 500 and 2500 years
respectively. These return periods are equivalent to
probabilities of exceedance of 50%, 10% and 2% for a 50 year
design life (ie. 50/50, 10/50 and 2/50).
The inclusion of the 2500 year return period event addresses
the possibility of infrequent large magnitude events that may
not be accounted for at the 10/50 hazard level. The design
philosophy and code recommendations proposed by the author
for the aseismic design of reinforced concrete chimney
structures are based on satisfying both the SLS and SSLS limit
states, which by default will also satisfy the DLS. The
probabilities of exceedance selected for ordinary and special
chimneys for a 50 year life correspond to 50% and 25% for t he
SLS and 2% and 1% for the SSLS.

2.2 Proposed provisions for aseismic design
(for 2001 Revision to the CICIND code )
(a) Overview
The seismic design approach described in this section is
based on performance based criteria:
Seismic load reduction factors for reinforced concrete chimneys:
a probabilistic assessment

J.L. Wilson, University of Melbourne, Australia
Presented at CICINDs 55th meeting, Antalya, 2001
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
(a1) designing the chimney elastically to resist
earthquake induced loads considered reasonable
for a serviceability limit state earthquake event
(a2) designing the chimney with sufficient ductility so
that the chimney will survive an extreme
earthquake event without premature failure and
collapse at the structural stability limit state
(b) Seismic Actions
(b1) Return Period: The design basis earthquake is a
representative earthquake associated with a return
period of 475 years (i.e. 10% chance of
exceedance in 50 years).
(b2) Elastic Response: The elastic response of the
chimney shall be calculated using the response
spectrum method and the design basis earthquake.
Assume uncracked properties.
Use a response spectrum with 5% critical
damping and 50% shape bound probability
appropriate for the site conditions.
Sufficient number of modes shall be included so
that at least 90% of the gravity load of the
chimney is accounted for in the modal analysis.
(b3) Seismic Design Actions: The seismic design
actions shall be obtained from the elastic response
by multiplying the actions by an importance factor
(IF) and dividing by a structural response factor
(R) to account for ductility.
(a) Importance factor
The importance factor is dependent on the
importance class of the chimney:
Class 1: IF = 1.2 (R = 1), IF = 1.0 (R = 2)
Class 2: IF = 1.4
(b) Structural response factor
The structural response factor is dependent on the
level of seismic detailing:
R = 1.0 No specific seismic detailing
R = 2.0 Specific design requirements
(c) General capacity design and seismic detailing
The design of the chimney should be consistent with the
principles of capacity design. The foundation system
and the shell in the vicinity of openings should be
designed for overstrength (flexure and shear) so that
inelastic flexural behaviour will develop in the ductile
regions of the shell away from significant openings. In
addition a number of specific requirements relating to
reinforcement ratios and splice details need to be
satisfied. The background to these recommendations is
provided in references [1,2].
3.1 ATC-3-06 Recommendations
The Applied Technology Council [6] in 1978 published
seismic hazard maps for the USA in the form of effective peak
ground accelerations and velocities (PGA and PGV) with a
probability of exceedance between 5% and 20% (i.e. return
period ranges from 225 years to 975 years). These mean or 50
percentile values were used to scale normalised response
spectra defined at the 84 percentile level (mean plus one
standard deviation). In addition, the ATC published generic
recurrence charts of earthquake hazard ranging from very low
seismicity to high seismicity regions. The hazard charts were
presented as a plot of effective peak ground acceleration vs
return period as shown in Figure 1.
The distribution of annual peak accelerations can be
approximated by a Weibull distribution of the form:
T = Return period (years)
a = effective peak ground acceleration
= seismicity dependent constants
Croft [7] fitted a Weibull distribution to the hazard curves by
optimising the constants f
and f
and obtained a very good
match as shown in Figure 1. The constants f
and f
and the
resulting peak ground accelerations corresponding to the 475
year and 2475 year events are listed in Table 1 for levels of
seismicity ranging from very low to high.
These generic curves and resulting acceleration ratios between
the 2475 year and 475 year events appear consistent with
studies undertaken in low seismic regions such as Australia
and higher seismic regions such as New Zealand as reported
Figure 1 Earthquake acceleration versus return period [6,7]
( )
( )
[ ]
( )
2 2 2
1 1
1 1
f / f / f
) T ln( f a or a f exp T = =

Seismicity f
Very low 17.3 0.36 0.057g 0.11g 1.9
Low 14.2 0.37 0.10g 0.19g 1.9
Moderate 12.3 0.42 0.19g 0.34g 1.8
High 12.3 0.72 0.38g 0.53g 1.4
Table 1 Weibull constants and earthquake accelerations for
different regions of seismicity and return periods
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
by Dowrick [8]. For example, special studies for low
seismicity sites near Sydney and Adelaide indicated that
extrapolation of results for a 2500 year return period would
lead to a doubling of the 475 year ground acceleration. In
contrast the New Zealand studies representative of moderate to
high seismic regions suggested an acceleration ratio in the
order of 1.7 between the 475 and 2500 year events.
Interestingly, the draft joint Australia/New Zealand
Earthquake Loading Standard [9] recommends an acceleration
ratio of 1.8 between the two return periods.

3.2 1997 NEHRP Recommendations
The NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic
rehabilitation of new buildings and other structures [10] is a
document published by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) in the USA. The document is intended to
serve as a resource document for the development of model
building codes. The seismic hazard is described in terms of
the 84 percentile (mean plus one standard deviation) response
spectral accelerations for periods of 0.3 seconds and 1.0
seconds. Spectral acceleration hazard maps have been
developed for the whole of the USA corresponding to return
periods of 475 years (10/50 years) and 2475 years (2/50
years). The effective peak ground acceleration can be
estimated by dividing the 0.3 second spectral acceleration by a
factor of 2.5. These hazard maps were developed and
published by the USGS in 1996 and are based on a number of
studies [11] and are intended to replace earlier 1978 maps
published in ATC-3-06.
During the 1980's and 1990's extensive strong motion data was
recorded from a number of moderate to large magnitude
earthquakes in California. Based on this data it was concluded
that the 0.4g effective peak ground acceleration previously
assumed to be representative of ground motions associated
with a return period of 475 years (10/50 years), significantly
underestimated the motion that could be experienced in the
near field of major faults. Consequently at some near-field
sites the peak ground acceleration has increased from 0.4g to
0.6g for the 475 year event. A comparison between the
effective peak ground accelerations corresponding to the 2475
year and 475 year events in the high seismic regions of
California indicated that the acceleration ratio was low with
values ranging from 1.0 to 1.5. Interestingly these values were
consistent with the ratios interpolated from the ATC-3-06
recurrence charts (Figure 1).
In addition, hazard studies were undertaken in the lower
seismic risk regions of central and eastern United States. The
concept of the 2475 year return period event (2/50 years) was
introduced so that the effects of infrequent but very large
magnitude events could be included in the design process. It
was felt that structures designed only for the 475 year event
may not have sufficient lateral resistance in regions where
large earthquakes have previously occurred such as around the
New Madrid and the Charleston faults. (The New Madrid
seismic zone generated four M=8 earthquakes during 1811 -
Defining the earthquake hazard at a return period of 2475
years is associated with significant uncertainty, particularly
since the database of ground shaking only extends for one to
two hundred years. Paleoseismic techniques have been used
to extend the database by carbon dating the historic
movements that have occurred along faults. This is a time
consuming and expensive process and usually involves
trenching across an existing fault that has outcropped at the
surface, and studying the geological layers either side of the
fault. Based on these studies estimations of the magnitude,
rupture length, rupture mechanism, slip rates of the faults, and
dates of rupture are made, and added to the earthquake
recurrence database.
The 475 year return period hazard maps prepared by the
USGS are similar to those recommended in the ATC-3-06
document for the central and eastern United States regions. In
the very low seismicity regions the acceleration ratio of the
2475 year to 475 year events was in the range 2-3 which was
slightly larger than the value of 2 implied from the ATC-3-06
recommendations. However in the moderate seismicity
regions near existing faults the acceleration ratios between the
2475 and 475 year events increased significantly to values in
the range 4-6, particularly in the areas surrounding the New
Madrid and Charleston faults. This large increase has caused
significant conjecture amongst the earthquake engineering
Hwang [12] notes that the seismic hazard in the Memphis area
is dominated by the characteristic earthquake assumed for the
New Madrid fault. The USGS hazard maps are based on a
magnitude 8 characteristic earthquake with a recurrence
interval of 1000 years derived from paleoliquefaction studies.
There is however, considerable uncertainty with respect to the
exact location of the fault, the size of the characteristic
earthquake (i.e. M= 7 or 8) and the recurrence interval, with
some researchers suggesting a much longer recurrence time.
In summary, the 1997 NEHRP provisions present the latest
findings from seismological studies of the USA carried out by
the USGS. A comparison of the accelerat ion ratios between
the 2475 year and 475 years events using the 1997 NEHRP
and 1978 ATC-3-06 provisions indicates general agreement
except for some moderate seismicity regions that are
dominated by large and infrequent earthquakes. In such cases,
the ATC-3-06 approach seems to underestimate the ground
accelerations associated with the 2475 year event, although it
is recognised that significant uncertainty is associated with
such infrequent events. Interestingly, the ATC-3-06 generic
recurrence recommendat ions appear consistent with
independent seismic studies undertaken for Australia and New
The probability of failure for chimneys designed using a
number of different methods in regions of seismicity ranging
from very low to high are compared in this section. The
different design methods include the 1998 CICIND code [13]
and the proposed limited ductile design approach outlined in
Section 2, to be included in a 2001 Revision to the Code.
4.1 Reliability Theory
The load and resistance factors used in the ultimate limit state
design approach are usually derived from reliability theory. In
doing so, it is implicitly assumed that all loadings and all
structural resistances such as material and member strengths
can be represented as random variables with known
probability distributions [14,15].
The load and resistance factors are selected so that the
probability that the demand or design load, S, exceeds the
capacity or design resistance, R, is acceptably small. The
associated notional probability of failure p
is expressed as:
= Pr (R < S) (2a)
= Pr (R/S < 1) (2b)
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
= Pr (R-S < 0) (2c)
= Pr (ln (R/S) < 0) (2d)
The notional probability is defined in Figure 2 as the area
beneath the overlapping portions of the R and S probability
distribution curves. The term 'notional' rather than 'true'
probability of failure emphasises the uncertainties associated
with the assumed probabilistic distributions of parameters.
The selection of an appropriate probability of failure is a
complex issue and dependent on social, economical and
environmental issues. Bierrum [17] recommends the
following formula for calculating the acceptable total life time
probability of failure (or risk) p
= 10
. K
. n
/ n
Ks = social criterion factor dependent on type of
structure (Table 2)
= design life in years
= average number of people in or near the
structure during the period of risk

A probability of failure, p
= 10
is commonly accepted as a
reasonable figure for tall reinforced concrete chimneys [17],
based on Ks = 0.05, n
= 50 years and n
= 2.5. ISO 2394 [18]
states that a failure rate of 1.0E-6 per annum appears
reasonable for buildings, which is equivalent to a probability
of failure of 0.5E-4 over a 50 year life.
Another method for assessing the structural reliability is the
safety index . ?ISO 2394 defines the index in the following
generalised form:
= (-) (4)
where (-) denotes a cumulative frequency distribution with
zero mean and unit variance. The two commonly accepted
(and equivalent) expressions for are as follows:
5(a), 5(b)

R = expected strength or resistance
S = expected load


= standard deviation of R and S
= coefficient of variation of R and S

The relationship between the safety index and the probability
of failure is illustrated in Figure 3 and listed in Table 3
assuming both the load and resistance distributions are Normal
or Gaussian. A value of = 3.7 is approximately equivalent to
a lifetime probability of failure, p
= 10
The Normal or Gaussian distribution is commonly used to
describe the distribution of dead loads and structural resistance
parameters. In contrast the Gumbel distribution (FT-1) is
commonly used to describe the population of extreme wind
loads and live loads, whilst the Weibull distribution (FT-3) is
often used to represent the probabilistic distribution of
Figure 2 Load and Resistance Probability Distributions [16]
( )
( )
V C + CV S / R ln
+ S - R
Type of Structure Ks
Public assembly, dams 0.005
Domestic, office, industry 0.05
Bridges 0.5
Towers, Masts, Offshore 5.0
Table 2 - Social Criterion Factors
1.28 2.33 3.09 3.72 4.26 4.75 5.61

Table 3 - Relationships between and p
Gaussian distribution
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
The probability of failure p
can be calculated relatively
simply with a closed form solution when both distributions are
Gaussian. When one or both distributions are non-Gaussian
(which is the case for earthquake loading) numerical
integration techniques may be applied.
The probability of failure p
can be calculated from the
following integral:

= probability distribution for factored resistance
= probability distribution for factored loads
= 1 if S > R and 0 if S < R
This integral in practice can be represented by a finite

= interval probability density for parameters R
and S respectively.
In the following sections the probability density function
distributions assumed for the seismic loading and structural
resistance will be presented and the probability of failures
calculated using numerical integration techniques.

4.2 Seismic Loading - pdf
The probability density function for seismic loading can be
developed from the following two assumptions: that the
distribution of annual peak ground accelerations follows a
Weibull distribution and that the probability that a peak
ground acceleration, a, will not be exceeded over a design life
of n years can be approximated by a Binomial or Poisson
distribution [7].

(a) = Probability that a ground acceleration greater
than or equal to a will occur over an exp osure
period of n years (Equation 1), which is
equivalent to a cumulative probability function
In order to calculate the mean and coefficient of variation of
this distribution, the probability density function (pdf or p
must be derived.

The mean (expected) ground accelerations a
and associated
can be directly calculated from the probability
density function.


These integrals can be calculated simply using a spreadsheet
and numerical integration techniques such as Simpsons rule.
The co-efficient of variation CVn, can be calculated (by
definition) from and
as follows:

0 0
dRdS C p p p
u S R f

u S R f
C p p p
n n
n o
) a ( P

0 0
[ ]
) a f exp( ) a ( P
1 =
( )
[ ]
( ) 1
2 1
2 2

= =
f f
) a f exp(
) a f exp( a f f n
) a ( P
) a ( p

da ) a ( p a a
n n
( )

da ) a ( p a a
n n
n n n
a CV =
n a
Figure 3 Relationships between and p
for Gaussian distribution [19]
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
These integrals have been calculated using numerical
integration techniques (Simpsons rule) and are summarised for
the four different seismic environments in Table 4.
The pdf and cpf values corresponding to the following 10
discrete acceleration values a
were then calculated:
= 0 for i = 1
= a
+ (i - 3)
for i = 2-10
The resulting cpf values were then averaged for each of the 9
discrete intervals and the associated acceleration values a
calculated using equation 8b for each interval. These
acceleration values a
were then assumed to have a discrete
probability of occurrence, P
, equal to the area under the pdf
curve in each interval, j. This methodology was put into a
spreadsheet program and the discretised probability distribution
values calculated for each of the four seismic regions. An
example of the spreadsheet calculation for the high seismic
region is presented in Figure 4 (note the acceleration coefficient
has been represented by the parameter y

4.3 Structural Resistance - pdf
Normal or Gaussian probability density functions have been
used to represent the seismic resistance provided by structures
designed using the following methods: (a) 1998 CICIND code,
(b) proposed 2001 CICIND code recommendations for (b1)
limited ductile design (R=2) and (b2) elastic design (R=1).
In each case the pdf has been divided into 3 intervals either side
of the mean with areas of 0.422, 0.076 and 0.0023,
corresponding to median acceleration values of 0.56,
1.75 and 3.05. Clearly, the mean () and standard
deviation () need to be evaluated so that the structural
resistance pdf can be defined. In addition, it is desirable to
express the structural resistance pdf in terms of an equivalent
acceleration so that the loading and resistance pdf's are
compatible, which in turn enables the probability of failure to
be directly evaluated.
(a) 1998 CICIND Code
The CICIND code recommends the chimney be designed
to resist a nominal load of 1.4 times the 475 year return
period design earthquake event (i.e. a
= 1.4a
). The
resulting resistance, R
is assumed to be normally
distributed and defined as follows:
The term R
= R (1 - 1.65 CV
) is defined as the ultimate
or characteristic resistance with 95% exceedance. The
capacity reduction factor accounts for the uncertainties
associated with the available resistance due to material
variations and modelling assumptions.
Equation 13a can be re-arranged to enable the mean
resistance to be evaluated:
R = 1.4 a
/ [f . (1 - 1.65 CV
)] (13b)
For reinforced concrete chimney structures it can be
assumed that = 0.85 and CV
= 0.10 resulting in:
R = 1.96 a
= 0.20 a

(b1) Proposed CICIND Code 2001 Revision -
Limited Ductile Design (LDD)
The proposed limited ductile design approach
recommends ordinary chimneys be designed for 0.5 times
(R = 2) the 475 year return period design earthquake
event (i.e. a
= 0.5 a
). Special chimneys are assigned an
importance factor IF = 1.4 resulting in a design load of a

= 0.70 a
. The pdf associated with the structural
resistance needs to be investigated for both the shear and
flexural failure modes.
(i) Shear Capacity
It was recommended in [1] that nominal design shear
forces be enhanced by a dynamic shear magnification
= 1.5 over most of the chimney height to
account for inelastic effects. The ratio of the failure
acceleration to elastic acceleration b = a
/ a

(assuming shear failure occurs when the inelastic
shear forces exceed 1.5 times the nominal design
forces) resulting from some 35 inelastic analyses [2]
and, not including the effects of overstrength, had a
mean ratio of b = 4.2 and minimum and maximum
values of 2.4 and 6.0 respectively. This is equivalent
to a standard deviation of
= 0.6 (or CV
= 0.15)
assuming a normal distribution with the minimum and
maximum spaced 3 either side of the mean. The
mean resistance R and standard deviation
therefore be expressed as follows:
(14a, 14b)

= 0.75 = Capacity reduction factor for shear forces

= 1.4 = Moment overstrength factor
Hence R = 7.8 a
= 1.2 a
/ a . R
a . R
2 4
2 4
Seismicity f
Very Low 17.3 0.36 0.06g 0.027g 0.78
Low 14.2 0.37 0.10g 0.049g 0.73
Moderate 12.3 0.42 0.19g 0.095g 0.54
High 12.3 0.72 0.38g 0.240g 0.38
Table 4 - Statistical parameters for different seismic regions
High seismicity acceleration y475=0.38g
f1 12.3 *
f2 0.72 *
MEAN 0.246 *
CV 0.38 *
S.D 0.093
i Yi(g) CPFi PDFi Pj Yj(g) Delta Pj
1 0 0 0 0.059 0.135 0.1186
2 0.153 0.1186 3.87 0.342 0.199 0.4473
3 0.246 0.5659 4.25 0.702 0.283 0.2726
4 0.339 0.8385 1.77 0.890 0.375 0.1036
5 0.433 0.9421 0.63 0.960 0.468 0.0366
6 0.526 0.9787 0.22 0.985 0.562 0.0132
7 0.620 0.9918 0.08 0.994 0.656 0.0049
8 0.713 0.9968 0.03 0.998 0.750 0.0019
9 0.807 0.9987 0.01 0.999 0.843 0.0008
10 0.900 0.9994 0.01
Figure 4 - Discretised probability distribution for the high
seismic region
( )
4 1 65 1 1 a . CV . R R R
R u u
= = =

50 a
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
(ii) Flexural Capacity
The ratio of the failure acceleration to elastic
acceleration b = a
(assuming flexural failure
occurs when the inelastic curvature demand at a
plastic hinge exceeds the curvature capacity) resulting
from some 40 inelastic analyses and ignoring the
effects of overstrength had a mean ratio of b = 7.7 and
a minimum and maximum value of 4 and 14
respectively. This is equivalent to a standard
= 1.23 (or CV
= 0.15) assuming the
minimum value is located 3 from the mean.
The mean resistance R and standard deviation
therefore be expressed as follows:
R = 7.7 a

= 1.4 = Moment overstrength factor
R = 10.8 a
= 1.6 a

(b2) Proposed CICIND Code 2001 Revision -
Elastic Design (ED)
Ordinary chimneys designed without consideration to
seismic detailing are assigned an importance factor of
IF = 1.2 and a structural response factor of R = 1 (elastic
design) resulting in a design load of a
= 1.2a
. This
design load is increased for special chimneys (IF = 1.4) to
= 1.4a
The pdf associated with the structural resistance for the
chimneys designed without seismic detailing in similar to
that discussed for chimneys designed to the 1998 CICIND
code (assuming = 0.85 and CV
= 0.10):
R = a
/ [ . (1 1.65CV
)] = 1.4a
= 0.14a

hence for: IF = 1.2, R = 1.7a
= 0.17a

and for: IF = 1.4, R = 1.96a
= 0.20a

4.4 Probability of Failure
The probability of failure was calculated using equation 7 and
the loading and resistance pdf's described in Sections 4.2 and
4.3 respectively. The process was semi-automated using a
spreadsheet program.
Sample calculations and plots of the pdf's are presented in
Figures 5 and 6 for the case of an ordinary chimney located in a
high seismic region and designed in accordance with the
proposed LDD provisions (IF = 1.0, R = 2) and the 1998
CICIND recommendations (IF = 1.4, R = 1) respectively.
The probability of failure associated with the LDD design was
in the order of p
= 0.02E-4 and hence negligible
= 0.38g/2 = 0.19g; R = 7.8a
= 1.48g;
= 0.15 R = 0.23g].
In contrast, the failure probability increased to p
= 21E-4 for
the CICIND98 design
=1.4 x 0.38g = 0.53g; R = 1.4 a
= 0.74g;
= 0.10 R = 0.07g].
A summary of the failure probabilities associated with the three
different approaches and the four seismic regions is
summarised in Table 5.
It should be noted that a fair degree of uncertainty is associated
with the results since the analyses focus on the extremes or
"tails" of the load and resistance pdf's. However, the analyses
provide a useful basis for comparing the relative merits of the
different design approaches.
The proposed limited ductile design (LDD) approach appears
reasonable with the probability of failure less than the desirable
level of p
= 1.0E-4 over a 50 year life for all seismic regions.
Further the application of IF = 1.4 reduces the p
by more than
an order of magnitude. Clearly the analyses suggest that the
chimneys designed for LDD have a negligible probability of
failure, and indicate that the selection of R = 2 whilst
appropriate for the SLS is conservative at the SLSS.
The proposed elastic design approach for special chimneys is
equivalent to the 1998 CICIND code and results in much
higher failure probabilities with values ranging from 20E-4 to
170E-4 (i.e. 0.2% to 1.7% exceedance over 50 years). These p

values increase further for ordinary chimneys (IF = 1.2, R=1)
with values ranging from p
= 60E-4 to 250E-4. These
indicative results highlight the inherent dangers of designing
structures elastically with no consideration for ductility. The
results also suggest that designs based on the 475 year return
period event are associated with higher probabilities of failure
in the lower seismic regions. In reality, these p
values would
generally be lower since wind loads typically dominate the
design of chimneys in low seismic regions providing some
additional overstrength.
A separate study was undertaken to investigate the likely
probabilities of failure associated with the 1997 NEHRP
provisions [10]. This document recommends that new and
retrofitted buildings be designed for a level of ground shaking
equal to 0.67 times the 2475 year return period event (i.e.
) instead of the 475 year event. Design seismic loads
are then obtained by reducing this nominal load by appropriate
structural response factors (R factors) to account for the
ductility and overstrength of the structural system. The
commentary to the NEHRP document notes that buildings are
expected to be severely damaged, but not collapse at an event
equivalent to 0.67a
. The commentary also notes that
buildings typically have a margin against collapse of at least
1.5, suggesting that structures should be at the point of collapse
for a 2475 year earthquake event (a
The resulting probability of failure associated with an exposure
period of 50 years and a coefficient of variation CV
= 0.15
was calculated to be in the order of 190E-4 to 200E-4 (i.e.
consistent with 2% exceedance in 50 years). Whilst there is a
degree of uncertainty associated with this simplified analysis,
the results suggest that the acceptable failure probabilities for
ordinary buildings subject to severe seismic activity are
significantly larger than the p
= 1.0E-4 typically recommended
for other structural loads such as dead, live and wind loads.
The study also indicated that the adoption of a 2475 year rather
than a 475 year return period event to define the notional
seismic loads results in probabilities of failure which are fairly
uniform for all seismic regions
1. Recommendations have been developed for the elastic
design (ED, R=1) and limited ductile design (LDD, R=2) of
both ordinary (IF = 1.0, 1.2) and special (IF = 1.4) chimney
structures to satisfy the serviceability limit state (SLS) and
structural stability limit state (SSLS). The probability of
exceedance over a 50 year life for ordinary and special
chimneys are in the order of 50% and 25% for the SLS and
2% and 1% for the SSLS.
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
High seismicity acceleration y475=0.38g
f1 12.3 *
f2 0.72 *
MEAN 0.246 *
CV 0.38 *
S.D 0.093
i Yi(g) CPFi PDFi Pj Yj(g) Delta Pj
1 0 0 0 0.059 0.135 0.1186
2 0.153 0.1186 3.87 0.342 0.199 0.4473
3 0.246 0.5659 4.25 0.702 0.283 0.2726
4 0.339 0.8385 1.77 0.890 0.375 0.1036
5 0.433 0.9421 0.63 0.960 0.468 0.0366
6 0.526 0.9787 0.22 0.985 0.562 0.0132
7 0.620 0.9918 0.08 0.994 0.656 0.0049
8 0.713 0.9968 0.03 0.998 0.750 0.0019
9 0.807 0.9987 0.01 0.999 0.843 0.0008
10 0.900 0.9994 0.01
b 7.8 *
b*Ae 1.482
CV 0.15 *
S.D. 0.2223
i Ai Delta Pi
1 0.804 0.0023
2 1.093 0.076
3 1.358 0.422
4 1.606 0.422
5 1.871 0.076
6 2.160 0.0023
i 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ai 0.804 1.093 1.358 1.606 1.871 2.160
j Yj Delta Pj Delta Pi 0.0023 0.076 0.422 0.422 0.076 0.0023
1 0.135 0.1186 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.199 0.4473 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.283 0.2726 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.375 0.1036 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0.468 0.0366 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0.562 0.0132 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0.656 0.0049 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0.750 0.0019 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0.843 0.0008 1.76E-06 0 0 0 0 0
1.76E-06 0 0 0 0 0 0.000002
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Accel (g)

Figure 5 - Failure probability calculation and plot of probability design functions for LDD chimney located in a high seismic region
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
High seismicity acceleration y475=0.38g
f1 12.3 *
f2 0.72 *
MEAN 0.246 *
CV 0.38 *
S.D 0.093
i Yi(g) CPFi PDFi Pj Yj(g) Delta Pj
1 0 0 0 0.059 0.135 0.1186
2 0.153 0.1186 3.87 0.342 0.199 0.4473
3 0.246 0.5659 4.25 0.702 0.283 0.2726
4 0.339 0.8385 1.77 0.890 0.375 0.1036
5 0.433 0.9421 0.63 0.960 0.468 0.0366
6 0.526 0.9787 0.22 0.985 0.562 0.0132
7 0.620 0.9918 0.08 0.994 0.656 0.0049
8 0.713 0.9968 0.03 0.998 0.750 0.0019
9 0.807 0.9987 0.01 0.999 0.843 0.0008
10 0.900 0.9994 0.01
b 1.4 *
b*Ae 0.742
CV 0.10 *
S.D. 0.0742
i Ai Delta Pi
1 0.516 0.0023
2 0.612 0.076
3 0.700 0.422
4 0.784 0.422
5 0.872 0.076
6 0.968 0.0023
i 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ai 0.516 0.612 0.700 0.784 0.872 0.968
j Yj Delta Pj Delta Pi 0.0023 0.076 0.422 0.422 0.076 0.0023
1 0.135 0.1186 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.199 0.4473 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.283 0.2726 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0.375 0.1036 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0.468 0.0366 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0.562 0.0132 3.03E-05 0 0 0 0 0
7 0.656 0.0049 1.13E-05 0.000374 0 0 0 0
8 0.750 0.0019 4.39E-06 0.000145 0.000806 0 0 0
9 0.843 0.0008 1.76E-06 5.82E-05 0.000323 0.000323 0 0
4.78E-05 0.000577 0.001129 0.000323 0 0 0.002077
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Accel (g)

Figure 6 - Failure probability calculation and plot of probability design functions for CICIND designed chimney located in a
high seismic region
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
2. The LDD approach is strongly recommended for the
design of tall chimney structures. This method allows a
50% reduction in earthquake loads (R=2) to account for
ductility effects, provided some basic design guidelines are
followed. In contrast, the ED approach which assumes
R=1 and does not allow a reduction in seismic loads,
results in a chimney that may be brittle. The ED approach
is consistent with the method recommended in the 1998
CICIND code. The R factors are applied to the elastic
seismic forces corresponding to the 1 in 475 year event.
3. The earthquake recurrence rates implied in the 1978 ATC-
3-06 and 1997 NEHRP seismic hazard provisions are
generally consistent except in some moderate seismicity
regions that are dominated by large and infrequent
earthquakes. In such cases the ATC approach
underestimates the ground accelerations associated with
the 2475 year event compared with the NEHRP
provisions. However significant uncertainties and
conjecture are associated with these NEHRP provisions.
In addition, independent seismic studies undertaken in
Australia and New Zealand were in good agreement with
the recurrence relationship implied in the ATC-3-06
4. The recurrence rate of peak ground accelerations implied
in the ATC-3-06 provisions can be described by a Weibull
distribution with the application of different constants for
different seismic regions.
5. A probabilistic approach was used to calculate the
probability of failure, p
, associated with chimneys
designed for a 50 year life using the ED method
(IF=1.2/1.4 and R=1) and the LDD method (IF=1.0/1.4
and R=2) in regions of seismicity ranging from very low to
high. The seismic loading (ATC-3-06 provisions) and
structural resistance were represented by Weibull and
Normal distributions respectively and the mean and
standard deviations for each pdf were evaluated.
6. Acceptable probability of failure values for the design of
structures to resist dead, live and wind loads are typically
in the order of p
= 1.0E-4, whilst for earthquake actions
codes of practice generally accept higher values in the
order of p
= 100 - 200E-4 (i.e. 1% - 2% exceedance in 50
7. The probability of failure values calculated using
numerical integration techniques for the 1998 CICIND
code were in the order of p
= 20-170E-4, which were
consistent with the results of the ED method for a special
chimney (ie. IF=1.4 and R=1). Applying the ED method
to an ordinary chimney (IF=1.2, R=1) slightly increased
the failure probability to p
= 60-250 E-4.
8. In contrast, the probability of failure associated with the
LDD method (R=2) for both ordinary (IF=1.0) and special
(IF=1.4) chimneys is extremely low with p
indicating the significant advantages of designing
structures to possess at least limited ductility.
1. Wilson, JL, 2000 "Code recommendations for the aseismic
design of tall reinforced concrete chimneys", CICIND
Report, Vol. 16 No.2, Sept. pp 8-12.
2. Wilson, JL, 1999 "Earthquake design and analysis of tall
reinforced concrete chimneys", CICIND Report, Vol. 15
No. 2, Sept. pp 16-26.
3. International conference of building officials, 1997,
"Uniform Building Code, Chapter 23: Earthquake Design",
ICBO, California, USA.
4. FEMA 273/274, 1998, "NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings", Report No's. FEMA 273
(Guidelines), FEMA 274 (Commentary), Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USA.
5. Paulay, T, Priestley, MJN, 1992, "Seismic design of
reinforced concrete and masonry buildings", John Wiley
and Sons Inc.
6. ATC 3.06, 1978, "Tentative provisions for the
development of seismic regulations for buildings", Applied
Technology Council, USA.
Very Low Low Moderate High
0.057g 0.10g 0.19g 0.38g
(a) Current CICIND code 150E-4 170E-4 80E-4 20E-4
(b) LDD method (R=2)
IF = 1.0
IF = 1.4





(c) ED method (R=1)
IF = 1.2
IF = 1.4





Table 5 - Failure probabilities of chimneys associated with different design approaches and different seismic regions over a 50
year life
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
7. Croft, DC, 1984, "Extreme value distribution of
earthquake accelerations", Appendix A of paper by Booth
E, Assessment of seismic Hazard" The Arup Journal, Vol.
19 No.2 pp 13-21, published by Ove Arup Partnership,
8. Dowrick, DJ, Gibson, G, McCue, K, 1995, "Seismic
Hazard in Australia and New Zealand", Bulletin NZNSEE,
Vol. 28 No. 4 pp 279-287.
9. AS/NZS, 1999, "Joint Australia/New Zealand Earthquake
Loading Standard", Draft Standard (22/12/1999) for
BD/6/4 Subcommittee, Standards Australia/New Zealand.
10. BSSC (1998), "NEHRP Recommended provisions for
seismic regulations for new buildings", 1997 edition,
FEMA 302, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington DC, USA.
11. ATC 35, 1994, "New developments in earthquake ground
motion estimation and implications for engineering design
practice", Applied Technology Council, California, USA.
12. Hwang, H, 2000, "Comments on design earthquakes
specified in the 1997 NEHRP provisions", 12 World
Conference Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand, Paper No. 657.
13. CICIND, 1998, Model Code for Concrete Chimneys, Part
A: The Shell International Committee on Industrial
Chimneys, Switzerland.
14. Melchers, RE, 1985, "Reliability calculation for
structures", IEAust Civil Eng. Trans., Vol. CE27 No. 1 pp
15. Ravindra, MV, Galambos, TV, 1978, "Load and resistance
factor design for steel", ASCE, Journal of Structural
Division, Vol. 104 No. ST9 pp 1337-1353.
16. Ayyub, BM, McCuen, RH, 1997, "Probability, statistics
and reliability for engineers", CRC Press, New York,
17. Bierrum, NR, 1998, "Failure probability and load factors",
CICIND Report, Vol. 14 No. 1.
18. ISO2394, 1998, "General principle on reliability for
structures", Final draft version, International Standards
Organisation, Switzerland.
19. Leicester, RH, 1985, "Computation of a Safety Index",
IEAust Civil Engineering Transaction, Vol. CE27 No. 1,
pp 1-6.
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
A challenging chimney retrofit project for a steel producing
company in Ontario, Canada

A. Bhowmik, Hamon Custodis, USA
Presented at CICINDs 55th meeting, Antalya, 2001

top of the stack. Plates were severely rusted. All welds
appeared to be totally ineffective, and connecting members
were all detached. During our inspection, we viewed the stack
from the top and Fig. 2 shows daylight through all weld seams.
There was a baffle wall separating the flue gas from two
boilers as seen on Fig. 2, but that did not appear to be part of
the original construction.
After careful consideration, it was agreed that the stack was
structurally unacceptable, beyond any consideration for repair
and should be demolished immediately before it became a
safety issue.
We noticed that the bottom 9.70m (32) of the stack which was
within the building and below the breeching duct entrance was
in very good condition. Ultrasonic readings showed that this
portion of the stack still maintained almost the full design
thickness of 16mm (
inch). This important observation
turned out to be very useful later in our game plan to provide
the customer the service they wanted.
Typical replacement of the upper portion of an existing stack is
not a complicated matter at all, and was quite routine work.
However, the customer did not want to simply replace the top
of the stack. They wanted two independent stacks servicing the
two boilers. It was important that each stack could be operated
and serviced independently.
This usually means two new stacks with footings, rerouted
breeching ducts, new emission ports, etc. but there was no
room available in the vicinity of the existing stack for all this
work. It was impractical to remove the entire stack and install
two stacks on the same foundation. In addition, two new stacks
on the same foundation would not have the cross
sectional area necessary for operation.
We had noticed that the lower 9.70m (32) of the existing stack
and the anchor bolts were in good condition. We came up with
the concept that we could remove the upper 39.40m (130) of
the stack, prepare the top of the remaining portion, and build
two D shaped stacks on top of the remaining portion. It
would be an ideal solution for the customers requirements.
Even though this was the most attractive solution for the
customer, it presented a great challenge to the stack designer /
builder from a hydraulic and structural point of view. The
double D stacks had to be coupled for bending loads,
uncoupled for temperature growth when operated
independently, and coupled for some serious shear transfer.
We had to deal with flat walls which were much less rigid
compared to typical round stack walls. Furthermore, to make
matters more challenging, the customers specifications called
for an operating temperature in excess of 343C (650F) and
635mm (25) of internal pressure. We reviewed the situation
carefully, evaluated the required structural engineering (which
The steel stack under consideration was built in 1982 to
service two boilers for a steel producing company in Ontario,
Canada. The stack was 48m (160) tall with a 3.28m (10 10)
inside diameter and with approximately the bottom 9m (30)
inside a building, protected from the atmosphere. It was built
with carbon steel (STELCOLOY Grade 50) and it is
believed that the fuels used in the operation were No. 6 fuel oil,
natural gas, and coke oven gas. The plant is located very close to
the shoreline of Lake Erie.
The stack had undergone severe corrosion and structural
deterioration over the years. Fig.1 shows the condition at the

Figure 1 - Corrosion of the top of the stack
Figure 2 - Daylight visible through weld seams inside stack
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
was different from usual chimney design) and proceeded with
the project.
The breeching size and entrance configuration were
maintained as before and with the layout as shown in Fig. 3,

we investigated the flue gas flow characteristics. The draft
condition was acceptable; the swirl caused by the geometry
was not a problem since the gas monitoring was done in the
breeching duct and a corner stiffener as shown in Fig. 4 was
designed to smooth out the gas movement at the corners.

After satisfying the gas flow requirements, we proceeded with
the complicated structural engineering aspect of the project.
Due to the separation gap between the flat walls of the twin-D,
we needed to analyse the wind effects with the wind being
parallel to the gap, perpendicular to the gap and at an angle to
the gap. Wind parallel to the gap will tend to pull the stacks
apart, wind perpendicular to the gap will push the stacks
together, and wind at 45 to the gap will generate shear. These
forces dictated the design of the clamping device between the
stacks. Also, the flat plates of the D stacks experienced
considerable pressure or suction depending upon the direction
of wind, which has to be taken into account along with
significant flue gas pressure equal to 635mm (25) of water for
the flat wall plate design.
The necessary parameters were developed after consultation
with a renowned wind expert. (See Fig. 5)

The drag coefficient did not change much for the coupled
stacks from a conventional stack ( ~ 0.7 ). We also included
? T temperature differential along the circumference for the
stacks as recommended by ASCE 75 publication Design for
Construction of Steel Chimney Liners.
Calculations for longitudinal stresses in stack plates were made
for all load cases (changing the wind direction). The shell plate
thickness calculations accounted for the loss of strength due to
high temperature and the internal pressure. The flat plates
needed to be reinforced substantially with horizontal and
vertical stiffeners as shown in Fig. 6.
For design of the coupling system to hold the stacks together,
we had to consider wind in three directions to calculate
tension, compression, and shear in the clamps. The force
coefficients were based upon the pressure distribution on a
Figure 3 - Proposed entrance layout
Figure 4 - Corner stiffener and flow smoother
Figure 5 - Wind design parameters
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
The existing anchorage at the base of the existing stack was
checked and found to be structurally adequate.
One of the usual methods of stack demolition is to use an
exterior bracket scaffold, cut sections of plate and lower with
the use of a crane or other suitable equipment. Our original
plan was to follow this conventional approach. However, since
every welded joint had deteriorated to the point that hanging a
bracket scaffold could be a safety issue, we used some vertical
rib stiffeners for bracket support.
The out -of-roundness of the remaining portion of the existing
stack presented some difficulty in fit-up of the new stacks at
the bottom. We had to develop connections that could
accommodate three directional tolerances during erection.
Provisions had to be made to resist along-wind forces during
the construction phase. One single D-stack was obviously very
weak against wind on the flat wall and the structure needed to
be temporarily stabilized until both halves were erected and
clamped together. See Fig. 12.
This was a project where the customer had certain usual
requirements, such as two separate stacks for two boilers so
that they could be serviced independently. However, when
these requirement was coupled with the limitations and
constraints they had such as:
cylinder at supercritical Reynolds Number. Because this
distribution was not well defined and would be altered by the
presence of the gap, a moderately conservative approach was
considered in the calculation of the force coefficients. See
Fig. 7 for the clamping assembly.
In order to eliminate the difficulties and uncertainties of the
influence of the gap on vortex shedding, external damping was
added to the system by means of foundation damping pads at
the base of the new stacks. A conventional ring damper was
not possible due to unequal vertical growth of the stacks
caused by temperature.
The temperature growth of the hot stack with respect to the
cold stack was about 200mm (8). Provision for this growth
was made by means of a slide plate assembly as shown in Fig.
Fig. 9 shows the beam model of the total structure. The two
stacks were coupled at 7 elevations. All different wind load
coefficients for various wind directions were considered along
with operating temperature, flue gas pressure,
circumferential T, and properties of steel (Youngs Modulus
and yield stress) were reduced to account for high operating
Once the loads at the interface of old and new stacks were
obtained, a grillage had to be designed to transfer the loads to
the old remaining portion of the stack. The top of the existing
stack needed to be reinforced to receive the concentrated loads
from the grillage. The stiffening of the existing stack is shown
in Fig. 10 and the support grillage for the new twin D stack is
shown in Fig. 11.
Figure 6 - Stiffener arrangement Figure 7 - Inter-stack clamping arrangement
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Figure 8 - Slide plate to allow for differential movement of the
two D-stacks
Figure 10 - Stiffening of the remaining lower portion
of the old stack
Figure 11 - Support grillage for the new D-stacks
Figure 9 - Beam model of the double D-stack arrangement
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
no room for two new stacks
no room for new foundation
no additional funds for major re-routing of ductwork
it became a challenging retrofit project.
Careful consideration at all phases of the project, creative
thinking, innovative engineering, and proper construction
planning were all key to the successful completion of the
An elevation of the completed structure is shown in Fig. 13.
Many thanks are due to the following individuals for their
Dr. B. J. Vickery
The University of Western Ontario Canada
Denis Radecki
Structural Engineer - Hamon Custodis, Inc.
Andr Grondin
Region Manager, Hamon Custodis, Canada

Figure 12 - Construction of the two D-stacks
Figure 13 - The completed pair of D-stacks
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Long term behaviour of reinforced concrete industrial chimneys in
Romania and a retrofit solution for chimney No 2 of the
Isalnita-Craiova power plant
L. Naum, GIP-Grup S.A. Romania
D. Furis, Technical University for Civil Engineering, Bucharest, Romania
Presented at CICINDs 55th meeting, Antalya, 2001

The construction history of industrial chimneys in Romania
originates back in the years 1850-1900, starting with masonry
structures and continuing after 1935 with metal and reinforced
concrete structures.
Over 500 such structures with heights ranging between 60 and
280m are nowadays in operation in Romania, with the tallest of
them, erected at the Baia-Mare Metallurgical Works,
being 350m high.
The large number of such objects, their remarkable age, their
long term behaviour, and especially their response to the two
strong earthquakes recorded in Romania in 1940 and 1977,
allows us to establish and take advantage of certain
conclusions and future actions aimed at reducing the seismic
risk. Some of these also corroborate the experience acquired in
other countries.
The long term behaviour of the industrial chimney structures in
Romania has been influenced by a great number of factors,
among them:
the hydrogeological features of the locations and the nature
of the foundation soil
the seismicity of the Romanian territory
the structural conception, the specific type of structure and
the foundation conditions
the characteristics and mechanical properties of the
materials built into the structures, particularly of those used
for heat insulation and anticorrosion protection
the completion quality
the state of art at the specific moment and the design
The seismicity of the territory of our country is caused by the
energy released by earthquakes clustered in several epicentral
areas: Vrancea, the Fagaras Mountains, Banat, the Cris rivers
region, Maramures county and southern Dobrogea seashore area
Located in the Vrancea mountains, the main epicentral area
affects over 50% of the Romanian territory, the motion being
felt over a wide area, extending from Moscow and Saint
Petersburg to Greece. The Vrancea earthquakes include also a
vertical component, that in 1977 has been active as far as 160
km from the epicentre. They frequently have two areas of
maximum intensity, which are symmetrically positioned with
respect to the epicent re area, namely in Moldavia and
The hypocentres lay at various depths, ranging from 20 to
150 km, most of them occurring at about 100 km depth. The
systematic earthquakes succession (50 events of M5 since the
beginning of the 20th century) [5.1] and the intensity of the
two strong earthquakes in that century: 10.10.1940 - M=7.4
and 04.03.1977 - M=7.2 submitted to a very severe test the
structures of the industrial smoke chimneys in Romania.
The behaviour under seismic action of the old, brick masonry
chimneys has been satisfactory for M6 earthquakes, yet there
was a different case during the strong (M=7.2) earthquake of
March 1977, when there were recorded several complete or
partial collapse events. There have been also recorded a series
of typical damages in the upper third of such structures,
including masonry shearing, displacements and dislocations.
Unlike masonry chimneys, those built in reinforced concrete,
also much higher (up to 250 m), erected of precast members or
having a cast-in-place monolith structure, completed with
gliding forms, behaved much better during the earthquake:
neither collapses nor major damage have been recorded.
The only damage recorded in the case of a few chimneys has
consisted of one or two horizontal cracks that occurred along
the casting joints. Such has been the case of the smoke
chimney at the Kinescopes Plant in Bucharest or at CET-Sud
Bucharest [5.1.].
The good performance of the reinforced concrete chimneys, as
well as of other objects erected after 1940, is due to the
experience gathered by the earthquake engineering experts in
Romania, which succeeded in imposing in 1947 the first
official technical recommendations concerning seismic
protection. These have been revised in 1963, 1970 and 1977.
By taking advantage of the instrumental recordings from
March 1977 and of the expertise acquired from the assessment
of the behaviour of a broad range of building categories,
Romania benefits nowadays from a modern Code for the
seismic design of all types of buildings, P-100-92.
A specific code for the design and the retrofitting of smoke
chimneys struct ures has been developed as well.
The long term behaviour of the smoke chimney structures in
Romania has been and still is influenced by the thermal and
chemical impact of the exhaust gases, such an impact inducing
draw backs in the normal operation of smoke chimneys, by
simultaneously increasing the seismic risk in case of strong
(M6) earthquakes.
Consequently, the Romanian experts have performed a broad
survey addressing the unsatisfactory behaviour of smoke
chimneys under thermal and chemical actions, initiating where
required retrofit projects and actions for the subsequent
improvement of the thermal and corrosion protection of the
The main causes for the inadequate behaviour under thermal
and chemical actions are:
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
the use of inadequate heat insulation and corrosion
protection materials
the abusive operation, with exhaust gas temperatures
exceeding the design ones
the absence of any maintenance actions
certain inaccurate assumptions concerning the structure
stiffness during various stages of the concrete ageing, and
consequently and underestimation of the stresses which
result from the temperature variations.
Typical damage recorded as a consequence of the above
mentioned causes consists of:
development of vertical cracks, the size of which impedes
operation under normal conditions
cracking of the heat insulation and of the anti-acid bricks
initiation of chemical - sulphate attack on the structure
The construction company GIP-Grup S.A has investigated
jointly with the experts of the Technical University of Civil
Engineering in Bucharest some 15 chimneys, providing
solutions and completing the retrofit design for 10 of them.
There are further presented the main features of the technical
solution for the rehabilitation of chimney No. 2 of the Power
Plant Isalnita, as well as some conclusions which emerged
during the execution of the works.
3.1 Main technical features of the structure
The main technical features of the structure, as stipulated by
the original design of 1967, were (see fig. 1) :
height H=200 m
circular, ring-shaped foundation, having an inner radius of
12.00 m and the outer radius of 19.20m, laid on marl rock
at a depth of about 10 m below ground level
tower walls thickness between the elevations +33 m and
+200 m - from 50 cm to 18 cm
the thickness of the truncated frustrum of cone - 40 cm
heat insulation in kisselgur
corrosion protection - anti-acid brick
structure reinforced with longitudinal and ring-shaped bars
in smooth reinforcement steel OB37, positioned over a
single surface, the outer one.
3.2 Damage recorded over time and its causes
The in-situ examination of the object, performed both before
the start of the retrofitting works and during their progress,
revealed the following typical damage:
0.2-0.4 mm wide cracks, evenly distributed on the frustrum
of cone generatrix, occurring mainly in the area of the
openings resulting from pulling out the gliding bars
deterioration of the kisselgur heat insulation, accompanied
by its cracking
cracking of the anti-acid brick masonry
sulphate type chemical attack on the inner concrete
surface, occurring on 3-4 cm depth, with simultaneous
decrease of the concrete pH value of about 8 to 8.5.
The structure does not display horizontal cracks, although
seismic motion was strongly felt in the area.
The cracking of the structure was induced by the thermal
stresses, along with the use of an inadequate heat insulation
material that lost its insulating properties in time. There was
also insufficient horizontal (ring-shaped) reinforcement over a
single surface.
The computation checking performed while devising the
retrofitting solution took into account the thermal field
variation over the height and the thickness, as well as its
circular distribution, and also considered the requirement of
design stiffness accommodating the normal operation
conditions. This confirmed the actual failure pattern.
There has also resulted the need to decrease the axial load in
the chimney and to install an additional longitudinal
reinforcement (over the inner surface) in order to secure for the
future the structure and the foundation safety, in compliance
with the requirements of the new earthquake resistant design
Code P-100-92.
3.3 Main features of the technical retrofit
By considering the present technical condition and the results
of the calculation checking performed, the retrofitting solution
resulted in:
restoration of the continuity of the structure by
injecting the cracks with cement-based materials with a
grain size that could reach 12 micro-meters
removal of the chemically altered concrete from the inner
side to a depth of 3-4 cm, along with the
neutralisation of the resulting surface
strengthening with an 8 cm thick jacketing, performed by
means of torcreting concrete, reinforced with
longitudinal and ring-shaped bars, int eracting with the
existing structure
the introduction of annular prestressing, in order to limit to
0.2 mm the cracks opening under eccentric compression
restoring of the thermal and corrosion protection, by using
adequate materials of the PENNGUARD Block System.
For the structure prestressing there were stipulated fine grained
steel strips tensioned by means of high resistance bolts. This
prestressing system has been chosen for the
following reasons:
it allows inducing an annular compression stress
condition of about 20-25 daN/cm

it implies the use of a less corrosion-sensitive material, that
has ductile features, able to contribute to the improvement
of the overall behaviour of the structure
it complies with the requirement of introducing the
prestressing forces in stages and it provides a more
accurate control during the tensioning operations.
The use of the PENNGUARD heat insulation and corrosion
protection system was been determined by:
the need to decrease the axial loads on the chimney
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Figure 1 - Details of the No 2 stack at Isalnita-Craiova Power Plant
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
structure, so that the new structural configuration complied
with the requirements of the earthquake resistant design
Code P100-90
the mechanical and durability features of the
the warranties offered by the manufacturer, specifying a
minimum 15 year life.
The design and implementation of the retrofitting solution
allowed the following conclusions to be drawn:
The safety and durability of smoke chimney structures
depends both on the accuracy of their dimensioning to
static and dynamic loads, and on the performance and the
durability of the heat insulation and corrosion protection
materials that are used.
More attention should be paid to the shaping and the
dimensioning of the structure to withstand thermal actions,
both in terms of a more accurate definition of the inner and
outer temperature fields, and in terms of structure,
especially stiffness design.
The execution of retrofit works requires strict control by
setting up a functional and reliable quality control system;
Before and especially during the works progress analyses
must be performed on the degree of chemical attack on the
concrete, for establishing the most adequate actions
required for neutralising.
Pre-stressing the structure with metal elements tensioned
with highly resistant bolts has the following benefits:
- It introduces an annular compression stress condition
and a more strict check of the prestressing forces.
- It creates the possibility to balance the prestressing load
along a ring shape and avoids the occurrence of
concentrated forces that may increase annular bending;
- It has a better ductility and may contribute to a better
over al l behavi our dur i ng t he s ei s mi c
5.1. Cutremurul de pamant din Romnia de la 4 martie 1977
Editura Academiei Romniei Bucuresti 1982
5.2. D u m i t r e s c u I , S a n d u l e s c u M s . a
Carte Tectonique de la Roumanie 2
Inst. Geologic Bucuresti 1971
5.3. *** Normativ pentru proiectarea antiseismica a
constructiilor de locuinte, social-culturale, agrozootehnice
si industriale P100-92 .

CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
ACI 307-98 and CICIND 2001
Comparison of in-line wind load and reinforcement

N. R. Bierrum, Bierrum & Partners, UK
Presented at CICINDs 55th meeting, Antalya, 2001
In 1995 CICIND published a paper (Ref.1) which compared
alternative designs for ten concrete chimney shells complying
with the then current standards ACI 307-88 and CICIND 1984.
The principal conclusion was that the material law for concrete
in the CICIND code was far too conservative. Subsequently the
CICIND Concrete Chimney Committee was charged with the
preparation of a revision which was published as a second
edition of the code in 1998 (Ref.2). Further work on crack width
and seismic design has since given rise to new proposals, which
the committee has incorporated in a loose-leaf edition published
in August 2001. Meanwhile the ACI committee has also been
busy, publishing revisions in 1995 and 1998 (Ref.3). Evidently
it is time for a new comparison.
This study concentrates on two aspects, namely the inline wind
load factors and the circumferential reinforcement requirements.
2a. Calculation procedure
The chimneys studied have the same dimensions as those in the
1995 paper. The order has been changed so that they are listed in
ascending order of size. The leading dimensions of these
chimneys are listed in columns 3 - 5 of Table 1. The (3-sec)
design wind speeds for ACI 307-98 are listed in column 6, and
the corresponding (hourly mean) winds for CICIND in column
7. The ratio of hourly mean to 3-sec gust was assumed to be
0.65 as recommended in the commentary to ACI307-98.
The comparison was made as follows. First, program 307DES98
was used to find the minimum ratios of vertical reinforcement
required to satisfy ACI 307-98 with the design wind velocity
given in column 6. Program CIC2001 was used to find the load
factors (column 8) at which the chimneys would be deemed to
fail according to the CICIND code with the same wind loading
as calculated by ACI.
Program CIC2001 was used to find the corresponding load
factors (column 9) for the wind load calculated by CICIND.
2b. Results
Column 10 lists the ratios of the base bending moments
calculated by the ACI and CICIND inline wind loading rules.
The ratios vary from 1.17 to 1.28, showing that the ACI wind
load is more onerous than CICIND. Upon investigation the
difference was found to be due to four factors:
a) The power law coefficient in ACI307-98 has been increased
from 0.14 to 0.154 this is particularly significant for the
taller chimneys.
b) ACI assumes an air density of 1.34 kg/m
for inline wind
loading (this is not stated explicitly, but is implied by
equation 4-4): CICIND assumes 1.25 kg/m
c) For low ratios of height/diameter the drag coefficient is
greater for ACI than CICIND.
d) The ACI drag coefficient is increased by 50% over the top
two diameters of the shell.
As foundation design is usually based on unfactored loading,
substantial cost savings should result from the design of the
chimney base to CICIND instead of ACI.
The inline wind load factor in ACI 307-98 is 1.3. The values in
column 8 range from 1.26 to 1.57 with a mean value of 1.41.
This indicates that calculations for strength are also more
conservative for ACI than CICIND. This is mainly due to ACI
taking a single factor (0.8/0.7 = 1.14) to account for the
moments due to deflection (M2) whereas program CIC2001
calculates M2 by the procedure given in Commentary 4 to the
CICIND Code. The one case (H) for which the load factor
calculated by CICIND is less than 1.3 is a strongly tapered
slender chimney having a high M2 due to a heavy corbel-
supported brick lining.
The inline wind load factor in CICIND is 1.6 for normal
chimneys and 1.8 for those deemed to be exceptionally
important. Only B, E and K might be considered to lie in the
latter category. For these three cases CICIND calculates load
factors between 1.8 and 1.9. In the other seven cases the
factors in column 9 range from 1.62 to 1.94 with mean 1.74.
Thus in most cases calculations for both wind load and
strength are more conservative for ACI designs.
ACI allows for the effect of thermal loading by reducing the
design strength of steel and concrete, whereas for horizontal
sections CICIND only requires a reduction in the maximum
compressive strain. The only chimney with a significant
thermal loading is H, which has very hot gas in an uninsulat ed
brick lining. The calculated temperature drop across the wall is
80K rather more than would be considered good practice
today. To comply with ACI the design yield strength was
reduced by 14% yet the load factor calculated by CICIND is
only 1.62, because of the large moment due to deflection.
3a Quantities
The ovalling moments at 60% of the shell height are listed in
columns 4 and 5 of Table 2 for CICIND and ACI respectively.
Whereas the vertical moments were greater for ACI than for
CICIND, the ovalling moments are equal or smaller.
The total (inside and outside) rebar at this level is listed in
columns 6 and 7 of Table 2: In all cases CICIND requires
much more reinforcement than ACI.
There are several reasons for the difference:
1) For the four designs with diameters greater than 10m the
governing factors are ovalling moment in the upper parts
and crack width in the thicker sections near the base.
The moments are about 20% greater for CICIND than ACI
because the ACI gust factor for ovalling decreases with
The load factors for ovalling are 1.5 for CICIND and 1.3
for ACI.
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
2) For the six chimneys with diameters less than 8.5m, the
ovalling moments are not significant. The CICIND designs
are governed by the crack width requirements, whereas ACI
requires only nominal reinforcement. The result is a huge
increase in the total quantity, particularly if the permissible
crack width is limited to 0.2mm. For the six ACI designs
CICIND estimates crack widths of about 0.4mm except in
case D where the estimate is 0.6mm.
The total horizontal rebar requirements are given in Table 3 for
CIC2001 (crack width 0.2mm) and ACI 307-98. For comparison
table 3 also gives the quantities for CIC2001 (0.3mm) and
CIC98 (0.2mm), and the crack widths predicted by CIC2001 for
the ACI 307 reinforcement.
3b Discussion
According to the CICIND Model Code, the horizontal
reinforcement must satisfy three criteria:
1) Strength
the section must be able to resist the
ovalling moment due to wind M


2) Crack control
the reinforcement must not yield when
the concrete first cracks, otherwise
very wide cracks may arise M

3) Crack width
the crack width must not exceed
permitted limits, depending on the
environmental conditions w
0.2 or 0.3mm
The difference in the reinforcement required in the four largest
chimneys to give adequate strength to resist ovalling means
either that CICIND is too conservative or that ACI is potentially
unsafe. However, most large multiflue chimneys are stiffened by
substantial concrete roof slabs which greatly reduce the ovalling
moments in the upper part of the shell. In such cases the use of
finite element analysis may lead to substantial cost savings,
provided that the crack width requirements are satisfied.
The crack control requirement is heavily dependent on the age
of the concrete. If the sun shines while the concrete is still green
the consequent microcracking may reduce the section stiffness
sufficiently to prevent the formation of uncontrolled cracks
when the chimney is subjected to thermal loading after the
concrete has attained its full strength. In this respect the CICIND
code is conservative.
The crack width requirement is based on both theory and
laboratory test, whereas ACI ignores the issue completely,
relying instead on minimum rebar ratios and simple detailing
rules. The last column of Table 3 shows the crack widths
predicted by CICIND for the ACI 307 designs. The performance
of the four largest chimneys is satisfactory, whereas chimney D
would be deemed to fail in serviceability. Defects in the
remaining five would probably escape notice unless they were
subjected to close examination until the reinforcement began
to corrode.
a) CICIND and ACI are in close agreement as regards required
vertical reinforcement quantities.
b) Base moments are up to 25% greater for ACI than CICIND.
c) ACI requires substantially less circumferential
reinforcement, which may well be inadequate to give
satisfactory durability of the smaller concrete chimneys.
d) To achieve low maintenance costs, specify CICIND 2001.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11





3sec gust
1hr mean
ACI wind
Col 9
Col 8

Failure mode
F 3:steel 80 10.4 1.0 47.6 31.1 1.57 1.94 1.24 Steel&conc
C 2:steel 100 13.5 1.1 36.7 24.0 1.45 1.79 1.23 Steel
D 2:steel 100 12.1 1.0 43.6 28.5 1.41 1.65 1.17 Steel
A 1:steel 110 11.5 1.7 49.3 32.2 1.40 1.74 1.24 M2
G 1:steel 110 11.2 1.7 48.2 31.5 1.37 1.72 1.26 Steel&conc
H 1:brick 120 15.6 1.8 41.0 26.8 1.26 1.62 1.29 M2
J 2:steel 125 9.2 1.4 56.0 36.6 1.36 1.73 1.27 Steel&conc
B 2:steel 200 10.9 1.0 51.0 33.3 1.39 1.78 1.28 M2
E 2:brick 244 10.4 1.3 41.0 26.8 1.47 1.89 1.29 Concrete
K 2:brick 250 10.3 1.3 40.6 26.5 1.41 1.81 1.28 Concrete
Table 1 - ACI307-98 and Cicind 2001 - In-line wind load factors
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
1. Bierrum, N.R., 1995, Comparison of concrete chimneys
designed to ACI307-88 and to CICIND Model Code,
CICIND Report Vol.11 No.2.
2. CICIND, 1998, Model code for concrete chimneys, Part A:
the shell. International Committee for Industrial Chimneys
(CICIND) Switzerland.
3. ACI 307, 1998, Standard Practice for the design and
construction of cast-in-place reinforced concrete chimneys.
American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
label height

Ovalling moment kN Total horiz (tonnes)
Column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
CIC2001 ACI 307 CIC2001 ACI 307 CIC2001 ACI 307
F 80 7.9 1.0 11 11 .41 .28 17.7 12.4
C 95 7.1 1.1 6 5 .44 .28 20.9 13.2
D 100 8.5 1.0 11 11 .46 .21 32.6 15.2
A 110 6.2 1.7 8 8 .40 .26 30.8 17.0
G 110 6.2 1.7 8 7 .41 .28 22.3 15.5
H 120 4.4 1.8 2 2 .41 .28 22.4 12.3
J 125 10.1 1.4 29 26 .64 .43 63 43
B 200 18.1 1.0 89 75 .99 .63 326 206
E 244 19.0 1.3 65 53 .57 .35 276 179
K 250 19.0 1.3 63 52 .55 .40 265 206
Rebar %

Table 2 - Horizontal reinforcement requirements for ACI 307-98 and CICIND 2001
Label ACI307-98 CIC98 ACI 307
crack width mm - 0.2 0.3 0.2 predicted crack
width mm
F 12 18 14 14 0.38
C 13 21 17 16 0.43
D 15 33 23 23 0.64
A 17 31 23 23 0.38
G 16 22 18 17 0.38
H 12 22 17 16 0.45
J 43 63 61 61 0.20
B 206 326 310 316 0.11
E 179 276 265 266 0.31
K 206 265 258 258 0.24
Table 3 - Total horizontal reinforcement (tonnes)
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
This paper considers the principal problems encountered with
the design and life calculation of stacks when located behind a
gas turbine and also when such stacks are to fulfil the function
of a by-pass stack. This means that the stack or the waste gas
installation will be heated to temperatures of between 500 and
600C in a very short time.
The construction of such installations can take a variety of forms
(Figure 1), such as :
single skin, double skin, freestanding, building
supported, steel frame supported
by-pass stack, stacks behind heat recovery boilers -
separate or combined with the recirculation of the waste
gas from the heat recovery boiler to the by-pass stack
A few major criteria determine the design of such stacks.
a) The high waste gas temperature of between 500 and
600 C behind the gas turbine.
b) The operation of the plant - i.e. number of start -up and
stop out cycles and the temperature/time curve for these
cycles and long standstill periods.
c) Large diameter due to the high temperatures and waste
gas volumes.
d) The often very high gas speeds of 30 to 40 m/sec.
e) The flow design - duct flow restraints / diverters.
f) The material selection e.g. large expansion of stainless
steels with temperature.
The goal is to determine the plant life based on the design
parameters together with correct determination of the required
construction details.
The life of the stack will be largely determined by the thermal
load case affecting the quick heating up during start ups and the
reverse case with stop outs i.e. thermal shock, which is therefore
included in the life cycle calculation. The normal stack design is
not adequate for such installations.
The following examples deal with internal liners in contact with
waste gas - with external insulation.
The operation of the installation influences to a large extent the
design and the life period. Before commencing technical design
the following criteria should be available.
Load availability of the installation - e.g. 8000 hrs/year -
life duration 20 years.
Operation of the installation - Gas Turbine only in
operation - waste gas with maximum temperature - lead
via the stack -e.g. 2500 hrs/year but not more than 8000 hrs
in 20 years.
Start up cycle - per year or with the life period e.g. 100
start ups/year.
Type and method of start up and stop out operation -
time/temperature curves for both cold and warm starts or
even switch from combined to gas turbine operation alone.
Emergency stop and shutter reaction periods.
Stop out periods in the year e.g. stop out from May to
Figure 2 shows the typical temperature / time curves for cold
starts and switching periods from combined to gas turbine solo
As an example of the operation of such an installation, Figure 3
shows a temperature / time curve for a thermal measuring device
over a period of 17 hours. The temperature sensor measures the
temperature on the external face of the single skin stack, 5 m
above the waste gas intake diverter.
The most important information affecting the material selection
with regard to the life period is :
a) maximum waste gas temperature
b) occurrence of gas turbine solo operation at maximum
c) stop out periods
d) construction
Steel stacks for gas turbines

N. Ferlic, Ooms-Ittner-Hof GmbH, Germany
Presented at CICINDs 55th meeting, Antalya2001
(100C) Separate bypass
heat recovery
boiler stacks
Combined Stack
Figure 1 - Waste gas flow behind Gas Turbine and Heat
Recovery Boiler
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
For material selection one has to differentiate between
austenitic stainless steel and heat resistant structural steel.
Within the range of the austenitic steels there is also a
difference between titanium stabilised steels and steels with
a low carbon content. The important criterion here is the
occurrence of intergranular corrosion at temperatures above
Due to the intermittent operation and eventual long stand
still periods, corrosion can occur with use of these heat
resistant steels. In such circumstances a corrosion allowance
must be added to the wall thickness depending on the life
period and the number of start -ups foreseen.
Another point which also requires consideration is that, due
to the high waste gas speeds, corrosion particles can be
released via the mouth of the stack. The introduction of
mouth shutters to try and prevent the release of such particles
has proven to be a problem.
The speed at which the internal wall of the stack heats up is
determined by the thermal transmission coefficient - i
This is dependent on the following factors:
a) Material austenitic or structural steel - shining or
b) Temperature of the waste gas.
c) Temperature difference between wall and gas.
d) Waste gas speed.
e) Flow form and design of the waste gas connection
For an example of a stack in austenitic steel see Figure 4.
The a
values for radiation and convection must be added
together. Built in parts can greatly affect these values.
Through the maximum and minimum values obtained
through the addition of these values, with a 90 intake bend
the a
can vary over the perimeter by a factor in the region of
The life period of the structure is mainly influenced by the
location of the stiffening rings and the ring/shell
constellation. The rings are required as buckling stiffeners to
take up the forces from the hanging structures or support
structures for such items as compensators, shutters etc.
For the structural design, the demands resulting from the
dead weight of the structure, wind loads and also dynamic
loads which can occur must be taken into consideration. This
examination results in the determination of both the ring
sizes and also the positioning of these rings.
The forces which arise from these loading cases must be
considered together with the forces arising from the
intermittent temperature distribution.
The design of the ring/shell has to be selected in order to
enable a life period analysis to be made for the thermal load
cases which occur during periods of start -up and stop-out.
With the known data of material characteristics, heat transfer
coefficient, temperature/time curve and the foreseen
structural design, it is possible using FEM programmes to
determine the probable forces and temperature distribution
occurring within the ring/shell design at any given time.
Deciding factors for heat transmission, expansion and the
resulting forces are the relative positioning of the rings on
the shell and the relationship of shell thickness to ring
thickness and width.
In principle, the temperature in the centre of the ring is lower
than in the adjacent shell and therewith the expansion of the
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (SEC)









Coldstart Switch
Figure 2 - Typical start -up curves for gas turbine stacks
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
shell is restrained. Bending stresses arise in and adjacent to
the weld seam at the connection of the ring to the shell.
There is no "General Recipe" for this detail but in general
the following can be said:
It is favourable to locate the ring as far as possible
inside the shell to enable it to sit within the hot gas
flow, so the ring width is not too large.
The exact dimensioning of the ring must be
determined in an interactive process.
The internally located ring naturally influences the
gas flow and the turbulence on the shell surface
which in turn has an effect on the value a
An important aspect is that the local system considered
includes a large area of the shell, as the temperature in the
shell area alone is far higher than in the areas of the shell
directly adjacent to the ring locations (Figure 5). The
examination of the local system alone can lead to an over
simplification in cases where a number of rings and
longitudinal stiffeners located between the rings are required.
In such cases the expansion of the free shell area is greatly
restricted by the longitudinal stiffeners, which heat up at a
slower rate and therefore at any time t have a lower
temperature than the shell area itself.
By consideration of the parameters given in Section 5 the
overall structure design can be determined by using FEM
examinations for selected sections of the complete structure.
The FEM-Programme has to contain special heat transfer
elements, which are loaded with the temperature-time curve
and the temperature transferred to the shell elements. FEM
programmes can calculate both the maximum and also the
period-related stress. In certain cases it is necessary to
examine the start -up and stop -out situations separately.
Normally, the stack can be considered as a single axis stress
In order to calculate the life of welded parts a variety of
methods or standards may be adopted. Normally however
directives for boiler construction are used. In Germany
suitable directives are the TRD 301 ( Technical Directives
Time : ( 30 sec/Unit) (about 17,5 hours)











Swi tch Stop GT Start GT Switch
Figure 3 - Temperature measurements on a single-skin waste gas stack during various operations
Heat transfer coefficient i (i = ic + ir)
e.g. Stack D= 8m, behind a vertical diverter, v= 30 m/sec
Material: Stainless steel, matt


Smooth stack,
behind a run-in section
ic= 27 W/m2K

Run-in section, l=4m
Consideration of turbulence
behind the diverter
ic= 46 W/m2K

90 intake bend
ic =72 W/m2K

Radiation, ir W/m2K
Wall temperature: Waste gas temperature: ir
20C 570 C 20
100 570 25
300 570 27

Figure 4 - Coefficients of heat transfer
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
for Boiler Construction) and the AD - Directive S2 ( AD =
Committee for Boiler Construction). In the USA it would
be : ASME " Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code - S VIII. Both
methods consider structures that are affected by pressure and
temperature changes.
For the stack the changeable pressure constraint does either
not occur or is of no consequence. Therefore we need only
consider the effects of temperature loadings.
At first it is necessary to define the governing temperature
during a load cycle for the calculation. The maximum
stresses arising with the load cases at start-up and stop-out
can be determined with reference to the finite element
results. This enables the stress reference oscillation mode to
be determined. The pseudo-elastic stress reference
oscillation mode results using correction factors for the shell
thickness, the temperature and the stress oscillation mode
relative to the elastic limit.
In order to examine the welded construction sections -
Shell / Ring - it is necessary to obtain a notch-bar class from
the relevant tables. It is then possible to calculate the
permissible load cycle under consideration of the notch-bar
class, the pseudo-elastic stress reference oscillation mode
and a modified Whler curve - giving the stress cycle. The
modified Whler curve considers the specialities of a welded
construction - weld notches - and inherent weld stress.
The permissible load cycle is then multiplied by a safety
factor of 2 and compared with the project cycle number
derived at for the total life period.
The temperature distribution within the structural elements is
dependent on the time for the life period calculation. To
confirm the results obtained, temperature measurements
have been made on the shell and ring elements of a single
skin stack with external insulation already constructed. This
stack is used for both direct emission of the waste gas behind
the gas turbine and also for release of the waste gas behind
the heat recovery boiler.
Figure 6 shows a general stack design with the locations of
the temperature measuring devices. Temperature
measurements were taken over a long period to ensure that
the results covered the complete range of operational
Figure 7 shows the temperature development during a cold
start in gas turbine solo operation followed by a switch to
combined operation. The absolute temperatures are shown
for 2 measuring points located directly next to each other
(shell & ring ) and also the temperature difference between
these 2 points.
The following results were obtained:
The maximum ? t between the shell and ring increases
after 30 minutes following a cold start to a maximum
175C, whereas the shell temperature alone reaches
This maximum temperature difference occurs only at
start -up. After switching - i.e. the closing of the flow

diverter during the cooling period - a much lower ? t
Upon switching to combined operation after 90 minutes
the wall temperature did not reach the waste gas
temperature of 570C.
Similar results can be seen in all subsequent temperature
diagrams. The temperature development is similar to that
shown in Figure 7. On the cooling of the structure no
negative ? t arises.
It must be recognised here that within a distance of 5m
above the closed diverter, where the waste gas temperature is
570, the stack walls have a temperature of only in the
region of 250C due to the constant radiation. Figure 8
shows the temperature distribution around the circumference
of the shell 5m above the diverter with gas turbine solo
operation. With this temperature distribution, the
phenomenon of temperature strands in the waste gas flow
may arise where, with high waste gas temperatures, large
temperature differences can occur within the gas stream that
over long periods of time can lead to a buckling of the shell.
An FEM programme enables a representation of the structure
to be made and additionally loaded with the load case -
thermal shock.
Figure 9 shows the temperature distribution over a period on
the external ring stiffened shell with varying a
calculated using an FEM programme. T1 is the temperature
on the inner face of the shell directly next to the ring, T2 is
the temperature at the external radius of the ring. With a heat
transfer coefficient of 30 the resulting temperature difference
is 150C, and with a coefficient of 60 the difference 250C.
The temperature measurements gave results of +/- 175C.
The maximum temperature differences arise, as with the
measurements in the range of between 500 and 2000
The free shell areas - between 2 adjacent rings - would have
a temperature of 425C, with a heat transfer coefficient of 30
after a period of 2000 seconds. That is 80C higher than the
temperature of the shell directly adjacent to the ring
Through the increased influence of the heat transmission and
the associated expansion through the combined affect of the
longitudinal and lateral stiffeners, a reference stress results
which is almost 1.7 higher, than when comparing the shell
alone under the same operating conditions.
The maximum stress in the shell occurs at the ring locations.
Through the relocation of the ring to the inner face of the
shell, the temperature difference between the ring and shell
and also the reference stress can be reduced. This gives an
improvement of ~ 3.4 in comparison to the shell with the
rings located on the outside.
From the calculation according to AD Directive S2, the ring
on the inner face has a high fatigue limit (36.5x10
whereby the ring on the external face, also under favourable
conditions when considering a notch class K1, only achieves
a permissible alternating stress value of 1.066x10
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001

Figure 5 - Individual system for the structural calculation
Local system, without
consideration of the stack

Local system, including shell

Lateral and
longitudinal stiffeners

Shell segment
Measuring points

Shell: s = 8mm
h = 20mm
b = 100mm
Figure 6 - General diagram showing the stack and
positioning of the temperature measurement devices
Time (5 MIN/Unit)









100 MIN
Figure 7 - Temperature development with a cold start and following switch to waste gas of the boiler
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
12 Measurement points (phi=30) over the stack perimeter











Figure 8 - Distribution of the wall temperature over the stack perimeter
Figure 9 - Calculation results for the ring reinforced shell under thermal shock
Inner face temp
Outer face temp
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Publication Price
Model Code for Concrete Chimneys, with Commentaries
Part A - The Shell
Part B - Brickwork Linings
Part C - Steel Liners

SFr 150
SFr 150
SFr 150

Model Code for Steel Chimneys with Commentaries SFr 150
A Customers Guide to Specifying Chimneys SFr 30*
Manual for the Thermofluodynamic Design of Chimneys and Chimney Liners SFr 100 NEW
Manual for Inspection and Maintenance of Concrete and Brickwork Chimneys SFr 100
Chimney Protective Coatings Manual SFr 100
Recommendations for a Quality System for Industrial Chimneys SFr 20
Reprints of past papers from the CICIND Report SFr 15
The prices shown in the table are the non-member prices. Fully paid-up CICIND members are entitled to one copy of each
CICIND publications free of charge. They may also purchase additional copies at 50% of the non-member price. This discount
does not apply to the postage charge.
Occasionally special offers are publicised on our web site. Currently any non-member buying publications from CICIND may
have the purchase price refunded if they subsequently decide to join as a member within three months of their purchase. Also, the
three parts of the Concrete Code may be purchased as a set for the price of only two parts - i..e. 300SFr.
The Customers Guide to Specifying Chimneys is also available as a download from the web site free of charge.
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Committee President Members
J. Sowizal D.T. Smith (Vice President), P. Andersen, M. Beaumont, W. Nye,
J. del Solar, G. Stegh, G. Di Poi (co-opted), P. Freathy (Secretary)
H. Bottenbruch, F. Henseler, M. Poli, B.N. Pritchard, R. M. Warren,
N.R. Bierrum
Past Presidents
Committee Chairman Members
Seals W. Evans F. Dolanski, B. Ertz, E. Horeman, M. Ingle, W.Plant, J. Sipek,
J.G. Turner,

F. Henseler M. Beaumont, N.R. Bierrum, H. Bottenbruch, G. Di Poi,
W. Jalil, H. Nieser, M. Poli, P. Noakowski, B.N. Pritchard,
H. van Koten
GRP Liners/
S. Reid D. Brady, H. Ershig, F. Henseler, B. Jezek, F. Niesen,
G. Oudin,
Concrete Chimneys N.R. Bierrum J. Davenport, C. Gonzalez-Florez, P. Noakowski,
G.M. Pinfold,
Steel Chimneys B.N. Pritchard Max Beaumont, Michael Beaumont, G. Berger, J. Bouten,
R. Ghermandi, S.O. Hansen, G.M. Pinfold, J. Roberts,
H. van Koten, R.M. Warren
M. Poli G. Berger, J. Davenport, F. Henseler, J. Sipek, R.M. Warren
Wind Loading P. Freathy A. Allsop, C. Goddard, S.O. Hansen, F. Johnsen, S. Reid,
B.N. Pritchard, H. Ruscheweyh, H. van Koten, B. Vickery
Maintenance J. Turner A. Bhowmik, B. Clatot, P. Farnik, A. Fellows, J.F. Sageau,
Metallic Materials W. Plant M. Atkins, M. Beaumont, G. Berger, J. Bouten, J. DeMartino,
W.L. Mathay, D. Peacock, G. Di Poi, S. Reid, D.T. Smith, J.
Sowizal, J. Turner, H. van Koten, R. Warren, T. Warren
Active contributors to committees are welcomed from any source, whether they are members or not. Please contact the
Secretary if you would like to take part or to comment on the deliberations of any committee.
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
A/O Teplomontazh Russia
Aaro Kohonen Oy Finland
American Boiler & Chimney Co. USA
AMTE S.A., Consulting Engineers Greece
AO Teploproekt Russia
Arab Company for Ceramic Products Egypt
Babtie Group Ltd. UK
Barron Industries Inc. USA
Beaumont Specialist Fabrications Ltd. UK
Beck Engineering (1992) Ltd. Canada
Bierrum & Partners Limited UK
Bos Nieuwerkerk B.V. Netherlands
Boston Chimney & Tower Co. Inc. USA
Building Research Institute Poland
Bureau SECO Belgium
Casley Rudland Partnership Singapore
China Power Engineering Consulting Co. China
Cima Antiacidi SpA Italy
Commonwealth Dynamics Inc. USA
Connell Wagner Pty Ltd. Australia
Construcciones Especiales y Dragados, S.A. Spain
Construma Consultancy Private Ltd India
Corporate Engineering Germany
Corus Iron Services IJmuiden Netherlands
Czech Power Company Czech Republic
D & C Engineering Netherlands
De Jong's liften b.v. The Netherlands
Delta International UK
Deutsches Institut fur Bautechnik Germany
Du Pont Dow Elastomers Limited UK
Electricit de France France
Electricity Supply Board Ireland
Endem Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret AS Turkey
Exponent Failure Analysis Associates USA
Extreme Situation Research Centre Russia
ExxonMobil Engineering Europe Ltd. UK
F.P.S. ARCO s.r.o. Czech Republic
Failure Analysis Associates B.V. Germany
Ferbeck & Vincent France
Fiberdur-Vanck GmbH Germany
Flint & Neill Partnership UK
Flow Engineering BV Netherlands
Fortum Engineering Ltd. Finland
Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd. UK
G&H Acoustics, LLC USA
GE Power Systems USA
GIP S.A. Romania
Gleitbau GmbH Austria
Gtegemeinschaft Wechstoff-Kompensatoren e.V.
Hadek Protective Systems B.V. Netherlands
Hamon Custodis Inc. USA
HAMON Mariani Battista S.p.A. Italy
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras India
Industrie-Verband-Stahlschornsteine e.V Germany
Ingenieursburo fur Bauwesen Germany
Innogy plc UK
John Turner (Engineering Consultants) Ltd. UK
Karman Tecnicas Especiales S.A. Spain
Karrena Africa South Africa
Karrena GmbH Germany
Karrena SpA Italy
Kinhill Engineers Pty. Ltd. Australia
Kvaerner Pulping AB Sweden
L & T Sargent & Lundy Limited India
Lasen-IHE-EPFL Switzerland
Lizmontagens Portugal
Lozzolo Refrattari Italy
M.F. Stramproy Netherlands
Makers UK Ltd. UK
Marshalls Clay Products Ltd. UK
Massenberg GmbH Germany
MC - Bauchemie Muller GmbH & Co. Germany
Metz Pty Ltd. Australia
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Japan
Mitsui Babcock Energy Ltd. UK
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Moe & Broedsgaard A/S Denmark
Mouchel Consulting Ltd. UK
National Thermal Power Corp. Ltd. India
NCL Stewart Scott Ltd. UK
Nicke l Development Institute UK
NOVMAR Ltd. Poland
Czech Republic
Ontario Power Generation Canada
Ove Arup and Partners UK
Pacific Power Australia
Partners & Van Putten Netherlands
PowerGen UK plc UK
Primasoft GmbH Germany
PROET - Projectos, Engenharia e Tecnologia, S.A.
Public Power Corporation S.A. Greece
Pullman Power LLC USA
Raymond Nicol Associates Ltd. UK
Rodell Chimneys Ltd. UK
Ruscheweyh Consult GmbH Germany
S.C. I.S.P.E. S.A. Romania
S.C. Termoelectrica S.A. Romania
SASOL Technology South Africa
Sauereisen Cements USA
Shell Eastern Petroleum (Pte) Ltd Singapore
Shell Global Solutions International B.V. Netherlands
Sika Chemie GmbH Germany
Sinotech Engineering Consultants Ltd. Taiwan
SITES S.A. France
Societ de Controle Technique France
Soyuzteplostroy S.A. Russia
Steelcon A/S Denmark
Stowarzyszenie Naukowo Techniczne Poland
STUP Consultants Ltd. India
Svend Ole Hansen Denmark
Syntex Engineering Services Ltd. UK
Tata Consulting Engineers India
Technical University of Civil Engineering, Bucharest
Technical University of Denmark Denmark
Thermodyn Corporation USA
Ting Tai Construction Co. Ltd. Taiwan
TNO Building & Construction Research Netherlands
Top Prime Co. Ltd. Taiwan
Townson Limited UK
TWR Lighting Inc. USA
Union Thermique France
University of Melbourne Australia
University of Trieste Italy
University of Western Ontario Canada
Van Packer Company USA
Voest-Alpine Stahl Linz GmbH Austria
Vogel Beratende Ingenieure Germany
W.S. Atkins Consultants Ltd. UK
Warren Environment Inc. USA
WL Mathay Associates Inc. USA
ZBD Constructors Inc. USA
Zerna, Kpper und Partner Germany
ZUT S.A. Spain
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Case Histories
Design and Construction of Mellach Plant Chimney, Incorporating
a desulphurisation Plant
Brunold, H. & Feischl, M., Vol. 5, No. 1, 1989
Design and construction of a cluster of 7 steel chimneys
Bouten, J., Vol. 11, No. 1, 1995
Innovative design aspects of the 200m concrete chimney,
Pocerady, Czech Republic
Noakowski, P., Breddermann, et al, J., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996
Chimney design practice in Greece
Angelides, M., Vol. 13, No. 1, 1997
Design of reinforced concrete chi mney of Shih-Lin incinerator
Fu, T.S., Chen, Y.C., Mu, L.C., Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997
Wind turbines on tall reinforced concrete chimney stacks
Bendix, H., Vol. 16, No. 1, 2000

Chimney business: Atmosphere of crisis or opportunity
Henseler, F., Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994
A long term prognosis on the development of industry and energy
consumption in Germany
Priebe, W., Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994
Stack Problems and Consequential Costs
Standish I., Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995
Cost Optimisation Methods in Chimney Design
Angelides, M., Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995

Design Aspects of Chimneys in Austrian Power Plants
Nussbaumer, L. & Prah, L., Vol. 5, No. 1, 1989
Safety in the CICIND concrete and steel chimney codes
Van Koten, H., Vol. 9, No. 2, 1993
Some unusual or unique chimneys
Smith, D.T., Vol. 11, No. 1, 1995
Progress in FGD Chimneys
Henseler, F., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996
No noise is good noise - developments in noise assessment and
Tompsett, K.R., Vol. 15, No. 1, 1999
Calculation of the damping of chimneys
van Koten, H., Vol. 17, No. 1, 2001

Desulphurisation Systems and their Effect on Operational
Conditions of Chimneys
Henseler, F. (Germany), Vol. 3, No. 2, 1987
Two phase flow in chimneys - the origin and transport of moisture
and particles in the chimney flue
J. Sipek & P. Snop, Vol. 12 No. 2, 1996

A new automatic device for cleaning the inside of chimneys
Asteinza, J.E. and Florex, C.G., Vol. 15, No. 1, 1999

Pressure conditions
Suction waves (Letter to editor)
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 9, No. 1, 1993

A "home page" for CICIND
Bottenbruch, H., Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998
A Users Guide to CICINDs Home Page
Parker, A., Vol. 14, No. 1., 1998
Overview of the history and work of IVS
Berger, G., Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998

Chimney liners
Protection of steel and concrete surfaces in the FGD environment
Collier, S., Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994
Quality control systems for the installation of a Hastelloy chimney
lining, using the "Wall-papering" technique
Stella, F., Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994
Protection of chimneys against acid attack and environment
Ertz, B., Vol. 15., No. 2, 1999

Concrete shell
Protecting the outer surfaces of chimneys downstream of flue gas
clean-up equipment
Erdmann, W., Vol. 9, No. 1, 1993
Protection and maintenance of chimneys
Muller, B.R., Vol. 6, No. 2, 1990

Behaviour and maintenance of coatings in chimneys of EDF
fossil -fired power plants
Thoraval, G.& Clatot, B., Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994

Concrete Materials for Chimneys in Marine Tropical Environments
Thornely, H.A., Vol. 4, No. 2, 1988
Construction of chimneys and towers using slipform and
jumpform systems
Kremser, B., Vol. 9, No. 2, 1993
Finishing a reinforced concrete chimney 7 years after interruption
of its construction
Ciesielski,R., Vol. 11, No. 1, 1995
Demolishing chimneys
Ganopolskiy, M.I., Vol. 9, No. 1, 1993

Comparison of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys, Designed
According to Various Codes
Noakowski, P., Vol. 1, No. 1, 1985
ACI 307 Latest Proposals for the Design and Construction of
Reinforced Concrete Chimneys
Rumman,W.S., Vol. 2, No. 1, 1986
Creep and Shrinkage Effects on the Stress State of Chimneys
Built with Sliding Formwork
Migliacci, A., Mola, F. & Riva, P., Vol. 2, No. 2, 1986
Circular Reinforcement of Chimneys under Load of Temperature
and Wind
Noakowski,P., Vol. 4, No. 1, 1988
Cracking Control in Concrete Chimneys
Noakowski, P.& Van Dornick, K., Vol. 6, No. 2, 1990
Minimum Horizontal Reinforcement in Chimneys
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 7, No. 2, 1991
The behaviour of reinforced concrete under the action of repeated
heating and wetting
Krichevsky, A.P. et al, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1993
Safety in the CICIND concrete chimney code
Bottenbruch, H., Vol. 9, No. 2, 1993
Lining support slabs in multi-flue chimneys
Busch, D. & Noakowski, P., Vol. 11, No. 1, 1995
Minimum horizontal reinforcement in chimneys (letter to editor)
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 7, No. 2, 1991
Report on Investigation Concerning Fatigue Behaviour of
Reinforced Concrete
Noakowski, P., Vol. 1, No. 1, 1985
Comparison of Concrete Chimneys Designed to ACI 307-88 and
to CICIND Model Code
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995
Comparison of concrete chimney designs per ACI 307-95 and
Bierrum, N.R. & van Koten, H., Vol. 12, No. 2, 1996
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
A New Calculation Method for Cordemais Chimney
Berthet, Y., Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995
Temperature effects in reinforced concrete chimneys and the
prospects of steel fibre shotcrete for reinforcement of concrete
Krichevsky, A.P., Brizhaty, O.E., Korsun, V.I. & Krichevsky, S.
A., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996
Calculation of chimney vibrations by transfer matrix method
Jalil, W., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996
ACI 307-95 - Major revisions from ACI 307-88 and latest direction
Bochicchio, V., Vol. 12 No. 2, 1996
Hot Air Jacket For 150M Multi - Flue Steel Lined Chimney
Monfalcone Italy
Davenport, J.F., Vol. 12 No. 2, 1996
On the failure mechanisms of reinforced concrete chimneys
Schueller, G.I. & Bucher, C.G., Vol, 13, No. 2, 1997
Failure probability and load factors
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998
The revised CICIND Model Code for Concrete Chimneys
Part A, The Shell
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 14, No. 2, 1998
Comparison of Crack Limitations in CICIND and EC2
Noakowski, R., et al., Vol. 14, No. 2, 1998
Analysis of concrete chimneys for mining shocks
Cieselski, R., Vol. 14, No. 2, 1998
Control of Crack Width Comparison of predictions in CICIND
and EC2
Bierrum, N.R., Noakowski, P., Schfer, H.G., Woitzik, M.,
Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999
Circular reinforced concrete shaft cracking caused by moisture
Moncarz, P.D., Coetzee, R.B., Noakowski, P., Vol. 15, No. 2,
Stabilisation of cracked chimney flues at Matimba Power Station,
Coetzee, R., Moncarz, P., Noakowski, P., Stegman, M.,
Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999
Control of crack width in CICIND and EC2
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 16, No. 1, 2000
Experimental evaluation of temperature distribution in chimneys
under sun exposure
Lechman, L., Vol. 16, No. 1, 2000
A review of codal safety provisions for reinforced concrete
chimneys subject to wind loading
Menon, D., Vol. 16, No. 1, 2000
ACI 307-98 and CICIND 2001. Comparison of in-line wind loads
and reinforcement
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 17, No. 2, 2001

On-line testing
The LADIR System for remote vibration measurements
Rota, A., Vol. 3, No. 1, 1987
Dynamic Structural Testing of Torre Valdaliga Nord Power Plant's
250m High Chimney
Da Rin, E.M., Vol. 3, No. 1, 1987
The Dynamic Monitoring of Industrial Chimneys
Sageau, J.F., Vol. 3, No. 1, 1987
Vibration Monitoring of Tall Concrete Chimneys
Da Rin, E.M. & Stefani, S., Vol. 4, No. 2, 1988
Monitoring of power station chimneys
Sageau, J.F., Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994

Design of concrete chimneys in areas of high seismicity
Allsop, A., Booth, E. & Blanchard, J., Vol. 9, No. 2, 1993
Development of the Turkish earthquake resistant design codes,
with reference to industrial chimneys
Aydinoglu, M.N., Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994
Earthquakes in Turkey - a case study of the Erzincan earthquake
Ansal, A.M., Vol. 11, No. 1, 1995
Ductility of reinforced concrete chimneys subject to earthquake
Wilson, J., Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997
Aseismic design in Romania and evaluating existing chimneys in
seismic areas
Rosetnic, V., Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997
The earthquake response of reinforced concrete chimneys
Wilson, J., Vol. 14, No. 2, 1998
Earthquake design and analysisi of tall reinforced concrete
Wilson, J.L., Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999
Code recommendations for the aseismic design of tall reinforced
concrete chimneys
Wilson, J., Vol. 16, No. 2, 2000
Experiences of the Marmara and Bolu earthquakes in Turkey,
Tunca, T., Vol. 16, No. 2, 2000
Earthquake damage to chimneys at the Taichung Power Station,
Taiwan, 1999
Hing-en, L., Ming-Chih, C., Vol. 16, No. 2, 2000
Damage observations from the Izmit (Kocaeli), Turkey earthquake
of August 17, 1999
Moncarz, P., Shusto, L., Vol. 17, No. 1, 2001
A preliminary analysis of the Tupras Refinery stack collapse
during the Kocaeli earthquake of 17 August 1999
Kilic, S., Moncarz, P., Noakowski, P., Vol. 17, No. 1, 2001
Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete chimneys
Riva, P., Vol. 17, No. 1, 2001
Seismic load reduction factors for reinforced concrete chimneys:
a probabilistic assessment
Wilson, J.L., Vol. 17, No. 2, 2001

The Internal European Market in 1992
Breitschaft, G., Vol. 6, No. 1, 1990
The Eurocodes
Seyfert, H.J., Vol. 6, No. 1, 1990

An assessment of EC8 rules for the seismic design of reinforced
concrete chimneys
Rosetnic, V., Vol. 15, No. 1, 1999
Technical Content of the Eurocodes
Nieser, H., Vol. 6, No. 1, 1990
Structural design rules for steel chimneys - the preparation of
Eurocode 3, Part 3.2
B.W. Smith et al, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1997
An assessment of EC8 rules for the seismic design of reinforced
concrete chimneys
Rosetnic, V., Vol. 15, No. 1, 1999

Chimney Foundations
Thompson, R., Vol. 2, No. 2, 1986
Chimney Foundations
Van Koten, H., Vol. 5, No. 1, 1989
Piled Foundation of the 250m Tall Multiflue Chimney at Torre
Valdaliga Nord Power Plant
Ulisse, F., Caruana, R. & Stefani, F., Vol. 5, No. 1, 1989
Thermally induced deflections of a chimney foundation
Aschieri, F. & Ulliana, F., Vol. 1, No. 1, 1985
Optimum dimension and reinforcement of concrete foundation
blocks for steel chimneys
H. van Koten, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1996

Brickwork liners
Brick lining versus Pennguard lining - can Pennguard win?
Noakowski, P. & de Kreij, A., Vol. 15, No. 1, 1999
Investigations of the Comparability of Different Standards for the
Determination of the Acid Resistance of Bricks
Bottenbruch, H. Posch,H., Vol. 2, No. 2, 1986
Thermal stress states in acid-resisting brickwork linings for
industrial chimneys
Da Rin, E.M. & Uliana, A.F., Vol. 8, No. 1, 1992
Design and construction of elliptical brickwork linings
Van Dornick, K & Noakowski, P., Vol. 8, No. 1, 1992
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Behaviour of the liner support system in a multi-flue chimney
Noakowski, P. & Van Dornick, K., Vol. 8, No. 2, 1992
Consequenc e of a sudden interruption of gas flow
Haag, G. & Noakowski, P., Vol. 9, No. 2, 1993
Brick lining reinforcement with protecti ve coating
Busch, D. & Noakowski, P., Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994
Thermal stresses in brickwork liners downstream of FGD
Lechman, M., Vol. 13, No. 1, 1997
The plasticity behaviour of potassium silicate mortars
Sipek, J. & Kolisko, J., Vol. 16, No. 1, 2000

Steel liners
Hot Air Jacket For 150m Multi-Flue Steel Liners in a 150m Tall
Davenport, J.F. & Smith, D.T., Vol. 7, No. 2, 1991
The effect of spiral gas flow on steel chimney liners
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996
Steel flues on a R.C. chimney, 300m high. Excessive vibrations
and arrangements for strengthening
Cieselski, R., Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999
Clad steel pl ates for chimney liner applications in Japan
Akabane, H., Yamamura, Y., Saito, Y., Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999
Practical aspects of fabricating nickel-chromium alloys. Lining and
Heath, D., Vol. 16, No. 2, 2000
Clad plate for air pollution control equipment
Akabane, H., Yamamura, Y., Saito, Y., Vol. 16, No. 2, 2000

Concrete Liners
Concrete Chimneys with Cast-In-Situ Linings of Polymer Cement
Lebedev, V.G., Vol. 7, No. 2, 1991
Unexpected Behaviour of some R.C. Chimneys in Polish Heat-
Generating Plants
Lechman, M. & Lewinski, P., Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995

GRP liners
Design of a "Sandwich" GRP Chimney Liner Incorporating
Thermal Insulation
Oudin, G., Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995
The use of GRP to repair chimney liners in an FGD environment
Schmidt, R., Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998
The use of FRP in flue gas desulphurisation processes
Kamody, J., Vol. 13, No. 1, 1997
Large diameter GRP liners in the United States
Ershig, A.H., Vol. 13, No. 1, 1997
Design of FRP equipment for FGD systems
Ness, J., Vol. 13, No. 1, 1997
Structural behaviour of a 160m chimney with GRP liner, 2.5m
Di Poi, G., Vol. 13, No. 1, 1997
Phenolic resins in stack and flue service
Heppenstall & Orpin, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1997
Design of sandwich GFRP chimneys
Maslov, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1997
GRP Liners - review by the CICIND Committee Chairman
Reid, S., Vol. 17, No. 1, 2001

Effects of FGD
Innovative Solutions to Chimney Lining Problems
Snook, R.W., Vol. 3, No. 2, 1987
Corrosion Protection of Steel Liners in Chimneys Serving Plants
with FGD on Stream
Beaumont, M, Uliana, A.F. & Poli, M., Vol. 6, No. 2, 1990
Protection of an FGD Plant: Surface Treatment of Steel after
Several Years of Operation
Van Der Sloot, R.J.S., Vol. 6, No. 2, 1990

Experience of various lining materials in an FGD pilot plant
Uliana, F., Scolari, P.V. & Poli, M., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996
Application of high nickel alloy liners in chimneys in FGD service
Plant, W., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996
Installation and operation of titanium linings in FGD ductwork and
Peacock, D., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996
Application of protective linings to flues and ductwork in FGD
Collier, S., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996
Repairing chimney liners using borosilicate glass blocks
den Boogert, E., de Kreij, A. & Huxley, N., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1996
Behaviour of various lining materials and metals in an FDG Pilot
Uliana,A.,Scolari,P., Poli,M., Vol. 12., No. 1, 1998
FGD - Past experience has shown that failures can be
Henseler, F., Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997
Chimneys for wet scrubber power plant applicati ons
Sowizal, J.C., Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997
Nickel containing materials in flue gas desulfurization equipment
Plant, W.H.D., Mathay, W.L., Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999

On-Line Monitoring
Hot Camera Inspections
Miller, J.D., Vol. 3, No. 1, 1987
Introduction to Thermography
Van Chastelet,L., Vol. 3, No. 1, 1987
Monitoring of Chimney Performance
Aschieri, F., Vol. 7, No. 2, 1991

Overview of US experience with linings and coatings for
concrete chimneys
Sowizal, J.C., Vol. 8, No. 1, 1992
Behaviour of linings in chimneys of Electricit de France
Thoraval, G, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1992

Sealing joints for chimney liners
Poli, M., Vol. 9, No. 2, 1993
Elastomeric seals fitted downstream of FGD at Drax power
Brown, T.R. & Evans, W., Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994
The RAL quality control system for expansion joints and seals in
industrial chimneys
Tuckmantel, H.J., Vol. 11, No. 1, 1995
History of the development of fluorelastomer compounds for use
in flue expansion joints
Bauerle, J.G., Vol. 12, No. 2, 1996

What is the Meaning of Quality Assurance and To What End do
we Pursue it?
Erdmann, W., Vol. 7, No. 1, 1991
A New Philosophy in Concrete Construction
Neseguer, A.G., Vol. 7, No. 1, 1991
The relationship between Excellence and Quality (letter to
Warren, R.M., Vol. 8, No. 1, 1992

Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance in the Republic of South Africa
Engelbrecht, W., Vol. 7, No. 1, 1991
Quality Assurance of Steel Stacks in the USA
Warren, R.M. & Reid, S.L., Vol. 7, No. 1, 1991
Quality Assurance to BS 5750
Beaumont, M., Vol. 7, No. 1, 1991

Corrosion deterioration in reinforced concrete chimneys
Moncarz, P.D. et al, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1993
The estimation of effects of loc alised defects on the integrity of
concrete chimneys
Levin, V.M., Vol. 9, No. 1, 1993
Some Comments on the Deterioration of Industrial Chimneys,
provoked by changes in their duty
Tzincoca, A., Vol. 4, No. 2, 1988
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Collapse of a 150m tall Concrete Chimney
Meiche, H., Vol. 7, No. 2, 1991
Damage by Hurricane Andrew to reinforced concrete stacks in
Moncarz, P. & Noakowski, P., Vol. 12, No. 2, 1996
Thermal effects on the Florida Power & Light Cos Turkey Point
Unit 2 Chimney
Cook, R.A., Hatfield, J.T., Brannen, W.F. & Joseph, T.D., Vol.
12, No. 2, 1996
Assurance of the availabili ty of two chimneys, 250m and 300m
tall, in Secunda, RSA
Noakowski, P. et al, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998

Steel chimney i nspection
Beaumont, M., Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997
Assessment of chimney life
Fellows, A., Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997
Introducing a new "hot" camera system for videoing chimneys
internally, on-line
Oudin, G., Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998
Investigation of a 30 year old 200m tall power plant chimney
Rosetnic, V., Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998
Monitoring and computer-aided assessment of existing
Lechman, M., Vol. 15, No. 1, 1999

A method of refurbishing old brick chimneys to suit modern
environmental conditions
Beaumont, M, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1992
Repair & rebuilding of a steel chimney using reinforced concrete
Laegaard, J, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1992
A composite method for crack repair and restoration of the load
capacity of a reinforced concrete chimney
Wippel, H, Steidle, P & Wendt, I, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1992
Rehabilitation of two concrete chimneys, diameter 5m and
height 100m
Toscano, A., Vol. 8, No. 2, 1992
Unconventional methods for concrete chimney repair
Frumkin, V.H., Vol. 8, No. 2, 1992
Modern principles in concrete repair on chimneys
Holdt, P., Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994
Reconditioning measures on power plant chimneys bec ause of
an increase in boiler output or conversion to operation with FGD
Ertz, B., FGD, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1987
Major Repair Executed on a Small Concrete Chimney
Coradi, A., Vol. 4, No. 1, 1988
Concrete Chimneys Life Extension in Power Stations
Gonzales, C. & Del Solar, J., Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995
Cladding to reinforced concrete chimney windshields
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997
Repair of a damaged concrete chimney using a steel sheath
Pinfold, G., Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997
Al Arish chimney linings failure and subsequent repairs
Smith, D.T., Vol. 14, No. 2, 1998
Repair of a ceramic brick liner in wet FGD service using
borosilicate glass blocks
de Kreij, A., Vol. 14, No. 2, 1998
Standby chimneys design, construction and operation
Jezek, B. & Sipek, J., Vol. 16, No. 1, March 2000
Interesting retrofits and repairs to stell chimneys
Warren Jnr., R., Vol. 17, No. 1, 2001
Long-term behaviour of reinforced concrete industral chimneys
in Romania and a retrofit solution for the No 2 chimney of the
Isalnita-Craiova power plant
Naum, L. & Furis, D., Vol. 17, No. 2, 2001

Case histories
Two steel chimneys having a particular design and deflection
requirements with regard to oscillation behaviour
Ferlic, N., Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998
Heightening of a brick-built chimney by a guyed steel top
Prinz, M. and Roels, V.K., Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998
A challenging chimney retrofit project for a steel producing
company in Ontario, Canada
Bhowmik, A., Vol. 17, No. 2, 2001

Sixty years expoerience of steel chimney erection
Beaumont, Max, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998
A novel solution to a difficult chimney erection problem
De Jong, J., Vol. 9, No. 2, 1993
The design and construction of a 100m tall double-skin, free-
standing chimney
Smith, D.T., Vol. 17, No. 1, 2001

Mistuned mass dampers
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994
Tuned mass dampers (Letter to editor)
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 11, No. 1, 1995
Shell to flue impact damping for dual wall and multiflue steel
Warren, R.M. & Reid, S.L., Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994
Optimum control of chimney vibration
Hirsch, G.H. & Jozsa, M., Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994
Vibration control of stacks by passive dampers - a numerical
and experimental study of the damping effect of inner tubes
inside a steel stack and a new dynamic vibration absorber
Ruscheweyh, H., Kammel, C., Verwiebe, C., Vol.12 No.2, 1996

The latest technology and quality control of steel stacks in
Hirao, K, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1991
The stress distribution in c himneys due to wind pressure
Van Koten, H., Vol. 11, No. 1, 1995
Effect of flange geometry on the strength of bolted joints
Pinfold, G., Vol. 11, No. 1, 1995
Safety in CICIND model code for steel chimneys (letter to editor)
Pritchard, B.N., Vol. 8, No. 2, 1992
CICIND Model code compared with the Finnish Code SFS
4395 - Steel Chimneys (letter to editor)
Siirilla, R., Vol. 5, No. 1, 1989
Profile of the Mitsubishi Advanced Steel Stack ("MASS") System
Omura, H., Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995
Report on revisions to ASME/ANSI STS-1 - Steel Stack
R.M. Warren, Vol. 12 No. 2, 1996
Wind load stresses in steel chimneys
J.G. Turner, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1996
A calculation method for fatigue life of steel chimneys subject to
cross-wind oscillations
Van Koten, H., Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998
Measured damping decrements of steel chimneys and their
Berger, G. and Verwiebe, C., Vol. 15, No. 1, 1999
Fatigue and damping of chimneys
Van Koten, H., Vol. 15, No. 1, 1999
The new CICIND Model Code for Steel Chimneys
Pritchard, B.N., Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999
Steel stacks for gas turbines
Ferlic, N., Vol. 17, No. 2, 2001

Code Provisions
Wind load provisions of ASCE 7-95 for flexible structures
A. Kareem, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1996
Blowing in the wind: A critique of the EC1 wind speed proposals
Allsop, A., Vol. 16, No. 2, 2000

Cross-Wind Response
Cross wind oscillations of cylindrical chimneys at low Reynolds
Van Koten, H., Vol. 1, No. 1, 1985
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001
Evaluation of Methods of Predicting the Across-Wind Response
of Chimneys
Daly, A.F., Vol. 2, No. 1, 1986
A design approach to evaluating across-wind response of
Vickery, B.J., Vol. 2, No. 1, 1986
Vortex Induced Vibrations of a Steel Chimney
Karna, T, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1988
Cross-wind vibrations of cylinders at small Scruton Numbers
Van Koten, H., Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994
Mathematical modelling of turbulent wind flow around chimneys
Younis, B., Vol. 11, No. 1, 1995
Experiences with Vortex Excited Oscillations of Steel Chimneys
Ruscheweyh, H. & Verwiebe, C., Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995
Shell/Liner Interaction on a Flexible Foundation
Vickery B.J., Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995
Vortex induced vibrations of line-like structures
Ole Hansen, S., Vol. 15, No. 1, 1999
Measurements of the test chimney at Aachen University
van Koten, H., Vol. 14, No. 2, 1998
Modifications of aerodynamic forces due to deviation from
circular cross section
Galsworthy, J.K., Vickery, B.J., Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999
Reduction of cross-wind vibration by turbulence and damping
Hansen, S.O. & van Koten, H., Vol.16, No. 1, 2000
Interference effects to vortex induced vibrations between large
chimneys of different diameters and lengths
Ruscheweyh, H., Trtner, A., Vol. 16, No. 2, 2000

Optimisation of the Top Part of Chimneys, with Regard to the
Downwash Effect
Ruscheweyh, H. & Ertz, B., Vol. 7, No. 2, 1991
Prevailing conditions at the top of chimneys
Henseler, F., Vol. 9, No. 1, 1993

Wind Regime in Hong Kong
Cheuk-ming, K., Vol. 4, No. 1, 1988
Extreme wind and failure probability (letter to editor)
Bierrum, N.R., Vol. 5, No. 1, 1989

Wind loads and design for chimneys
Vickery, B.J., Vol. 14, No. 2, 1998
CICIND REPORT Vol. 17, No. 2, September 2001

CICIND was founded in 1973 in Paris, under the Presidency of Marius Diver of France. The need for such a body had
been demonstrated at the first International Chimney Symposium, held in Edinburgh earlier that year. This symposium
highlighted the contradictory requirements of the various National Codes governing the design of industrial chimneys as
well as a lack of knowledge about the processes leading to accelerated deterioration of chimneys at that time.

Originally CICIND comprised a small, informal group of engineers who shared an interest in industrial chimneys.
Membership was by invitation. In 1981, under the Presidency of Herman Bottenbruch of Germany, the organisation was
formalised as an Association and expanded to be open to anyone interested in industrial chimneys, an annual
subscription being charged. By 1985, membership had grown to 86, representing chimney owners, builders, component
suppliers, consultants and academicians from 20 countries worldwide. Statues were agreed and the Association was
registered in Zurich, Switzerland. Its annual budget had grown to 65000 Swiss Fr, which paid for a secretariat, research
and publications.

Since then, the membership has continued to grow, and now exceeds 180 (from more t han 30 countries) with an annual
budget of 120,000 Swiss Fr. It is now a mature, respected association, whose recommendations and model codes in the
field of industrial chimneys are in daily use throughout the world.

More information on CICIND can be found on our web site

Promote knowledge about the design, construction, operation and maintenance of industrial chimneys
Stimulate harmonisation of national design codes
Organise international meetings and conferences to discuss solutions to problems associated with industrial chimneys
Publish model codes and reports
Sponsor research

CICIND is a private Association comprising individual members and members representing companies and other
organisations. CICIND members represent chimney owners, builders, suppliers, consultants, researchers and academics.

CICIND Meetings take place t wice a year at various locations around the world. The March/April meeting includes a
Normal General Assembly and usually lasts two days. The September meeting is usually less formal lasts one day.

CICIND REPORT Published twice per year, containing CICIND news and technical papers presented at
CICINDs spring and autumn meetings.
Model Code for Concrete Chimneys Part A: The Shell 2nd Edn. Rev. 1, August 2001
Model Code for Concrete Chimneys Part B: Brickwork Linings December 1991.
Model Code for Concrete Chimneys Part C: Steel Liners December 1995
Model Code for Steel Chimneys 2nd Edn., December 1999
Manual for the Thermofluodynamic Design of Chimneys and Chimney Liners August 2001
A Customers Guide to Specifying Chimneys June 1990
Manual for the Maintenance and Inspection of Brickwork and Concrete Chimneys February 1993.
Recommendations for a Quality System for Industrial Chimneys April 1993.
Manual on Chimney Protective Coatings September 1996

CICIND documents are presented to the best of the knowledge of its members as a guide only. CICIND is not, nor are
any of its members, to be held responsible for any failure alleged or proved to be due to adherence to recommendations,
or acceptance of information published by the Association in a Model Code or other publication or in any other way.

CICIND, Talacker 50, CH-8001, Zurich, Switzerland