You are on page 1of 16

A comparison of cross-wind response evaluation for chimneys following

different international codes


Celso J. Muoz Black1, Hugo Hernndez Barrios2, Alberto Lpez Lpez3
1

Researcher, Gerencia de Ingeniera Civil, Instituto de Investigaciones Elctricas, Cuernavaca,


Morelos, Mxico, cjmb@iie.org.mx
2
Professor, Escuela de Ingeniera Civil, Universidad de Michoacn, Morelia, Michoacn,
Mxico, hugohbarrios@yahoo.com.mx
3
Researcher, Gerencia de Ingeniera Civil, Instituto de Investigaciones Elctricas, Cuernavaca,
Morelos, Mxico, alopezl@iie.org.mx

ABSTRACT
It is well known that at certain intensities of wind flow velocity acting on a structure, the
response of the latter in the transverse direction of flow is induced by alternating vortices. The
most important parameters that contribute to the cross wind response are: the intensity of
turbulence, the duration of the gusts and the magnitude of the wind speed in the floe direction.
Nevertheless, there is not exist an unified criteria to evaluate the cross-wind response and
several methodologies has been proposed. In this paper, two of those methodologies for the
calculation of total displacements in the transverse direction of the wind flow, are analyzed and
described. Also, some procedures proposed in different international design codes to evaluate
the cross-wind response of cylindrical structures, are applied to the case of a chimney for
comparison. Finally, it is concluded that the method that best estimates the cross response due to
vortices, with respect to the results reported in the literature and obtained experimentally in full
scale prototypes, is the one proposed in the Danish code.

INTRODUCTION
A high speed flow passing around a body with arbitrary shape (Figure 1) produces a wake vortex
on the back with alternating movement from one side to another, a phenomenon known as wake
vortices Bnard - von Karman who are credited with this observation.
In many structures not only the dynamic response in the along-wind direction is
important, but also the response due to vortex shedding in the leeward side that produce crosswind displacements and which must be considered in the total response. The longitudinal
vibrations of the structure are caused by the natural turbulence of the wind, but the cross-wind
ones are caused, besides the natural turbulence of the wind, by vortex shedding. This
phenomenon can be presented in structures like lattice towers with a high solidity ratio
( 0 .5) , in rectangular prismatic structures like buildings (Figure 2) and slim bridges, but
mainly it appears in structures with cylindrical cross-sectional section like cylindrical towers,
poles, masts and chimneys.
A great number of failures in structures, mainly with circular cross-section [1], have been
reported in literature. In steel chimneys, the cross-wind effects produce important displacements
perpendicular to the wind direction and these at the time, increase the cross-wind base
overturning moment in the foundations, and therefore in the joint stresses, as they are the
anchors, nuts and the base plate. Because the vortex shedding produced fluctuating forces, this is
translated in a series of cycles of load that can generate a fatigue failure in the material. Some
examples are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 1: Von Karman Vortex, behind the Guadalupe Island (www.daac.gstc.nasa.gov)

(a) Tower with high solidity ratio


(b) Slender building
Figure 2: Structures susceptible to transversal response to wind flow

(a) Failure in Foundation


(b) Failure by cycles of load
Figure 3: Failure in chimney foundation and their attachment due to cross-wind effects
(www.mecaconsulting.com)

METHODS TO EVALUATE CROSS-WIND RESPONSE


Two basic methodologies for the calculation of the total displacements in the transverse direction of the
wind flow in civil structures due to the vortex shedding exist: the spectral method and the resonance

vortex shedding method. Before describing these two methodologies, it is necessary to remark
some concepts described in the following.

The vortex shedding frequency depends on the body shape, flow velocity, surface
roughness and the flow turbulence. The frequency of vortex shedding is given by

St V
(1)
b
Where St is the Strouhal number (dimensionless), V (m/s) is the mean wind velocity

crit

and b (m) is the characteristics width of the cross-section; for circular cylinders the
characteristics width is the mean external diameter. The vortex shedding effect on a circular
cylinder depends on the Reynolds number, which is given by:
Vb
(2)
Re

Where V and b are defined as in Equation 1 and is the kinematic viscosity of the air,
which is approximately 15 x 10-6 m2/s corresponding to a temperature of 20 centigrade. The
path of vortex wake in the leeward is important, mainly those that occur regularly and move
alternately from one side to another side (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Experimental evidence of the vortex shedding on a leeward side of circular section

When Reynolds number increases the flow shifts from laminar to transitory turbulence.
Achenbach [2] identified four intervals depending on the flow behavior of the boundary layer,
these are: subcritical, critical, supercritical and transcritical. The Reynolds number that defines
each scheme has not been determined accurately because it depends on various factors like the
roughness of the cylinder, the intensity of streamlines, and aspect ratio of the cylinder (Figure 5).
In Table 1, this intervals and their corresponding approximated Reynolds number are related.
For circular cross-section, Strouhal number varies with flow velocity and therefore with
Reynolds number. In Table 2, StrouhalReynolds number empirical relationships are shown [3],
where y ln Re 1.6 x 10 3 .
In general, Strouhal number ranges from 0.18 to 0.20. In most practical cases that arise in
structures, it may be considered a constant Strouhal number equal to 0.2.
In the following paragraphs the spectral and resonance vortex shedding methodologies
are described.
SPECTRAL METHOD
The spectral method gives adequate results for relatively rigid structures such as concrete
silos, concrete chimneys with large diameter and low height [4]. In this case, the procedure of the
vortex shedding response is based on the spectral modal analysis.
The generalized force on the structure, due to the vortex shedding, is:

Figure 5: Vortex variation on leeward side in function of flow velocity


Table 1: Flow regime type Reynolds number

Regime

Reynolds Number

Subcritical

200 < Re 1.5 x 105

Critical

1.5 x 105 < Re 4.0 x 105

Supercritical

4.0 x 105 < Re 1.0 x 107

Transcritical

Re > 1.0 x 107

Table 2: Strouhal Reynolds number empirical relationships

Strouhal Number

S t 0.2139 4.0 Re

S t 0 .1853 0 .0261 exp 0 .9 y 2.3

Reynolds Number

S t 0 .1848 8 .6 x 10 -4 R e 1 .5 x 10 5

325 < Re 1.6 x 103

1.6 x 103 < Re 1.5 x 105


1.5 x 105 < Re 3.4 x 105

Q(t ) Fv ( z , t ) ( z ) dz
0

(3)

Where the inertia force per unit length in cross-wind direction, Fv ( z , t ) , is given by:

Fv ( z , t ) q ( z ) b( z ) C L ( z , t )

(z )
h

(4)

Modal shape, and


Height of the structure

In the Equation 4, q (z ) is the velocity wind pressure, b (z ) is the external diameter and
C L ( z, t ) is a dimensionless factor. If it is considered that e (Hz) is the natural modal frequency,
then the structure deflexion can be written as
y ( z , t ) ( z ) a (t )
(5)
Where a (t ) is the modal displacement, which is considered as stochastic process with a
power spectral density given by

S a ( ) H ( )

h 2 q b C L ref
2

e Bref

J ( )

(6)

Where H ( ) is the structure transfer function, is the modal frequency and J ( ) is


the aerodynamic admittance given by:
1 h h
2
J ( ) 2 g ( z1 , ) g ( z 2 , ) ( z1 , z 2 ) dz1 dz 2
(7)
h 0 0
Where ( z1 , z 2 ) is the correlation function and g ( z , ) is defined by:

1 ( z ) 2
s
exp
(8)

2
(
B( z ) s ( z )
B
z )

If the correlation length is small, the joint aerodynamic admittance can be approximated
q ( z ) b( z ) C L ( z ) ( z )
g ( z , )
q b C L ref

by:

J ( ) 2

bref

Bref

0 g ( z, )
h

dz
(9)
h2
Where b ref is the correlation length.
The standard deviation of the displacement for a white noise excitation can be
approximated by:

y ( z) ( z)

S a ( ) d

(10)

Or

y ( z)

( z ) C L ,ref
2 mref ref
Bref

1 h
g ( z, e )2 dz

0
h
(2 e ) 2 v

bref q ref bref


h

(11)

Where e (Hz) is the fundamental frequency of the structure and v is a dimensionless


factor given by:

1 h m( z ) 2 ( z )
dz
2
h 0 mref ref

(12)

Where m (z ) is the mass per unit length.


The total logarithmic decrement of damping, , is equal to the sum of the logarithmic
decrement of structural damping, s , and the logarithmic decrement of aerodynamic damping,

a , which is given by:

a 2 K a

2
bref

me

(13)

Where is the air density, b ref is the reference width, K a is an aerodynamic parameter,
which is positive if the aerodynamic damping is negative and me is the equivalent mass per unit
length given by:

me

m( z ) 2 ( z ) dz

(14)

2 ( z ) dz

The inertia force per unit length, Fv (z ) , acting perpendicular to the wind direction, can
be obtained by:

Fv ( z ) m( z ) (2 e ) 2 k p y ( z )

(15)

Where k p is the peak factor and y (z ) is the standard deviation of the displacement
given in Equation 11.
RESONANT VORTEX SHEDDING METHOD
The modal force for a dynamic system is the same that is obtained with the Spectral
Method (Equation 3). Nevertheless, the Resonant Vortex Shedding Method [5] establishes that
inertia force per unit length, in cross-wind direction, is:

Fv ( z , t ) q ( z ) d ( z ) c F ( z ) sin 2 s t ( z )

(16)

Where q (z ) and d (z ) was already defined in Equation 4, cF (z) is a dimensionless form


factor that describes the amplitude, s is vortex shedding frequency and (z ) is a factor equal to
0 or 1, which determines if the load has the same sign that the modal shape at all points
throughout the structure length. For modes with constant sign, ( z ) 0 . The form factor, cF (z) ,
depends on vibration amplitude, air turbulence, Reynolds and Strouhal numbers, cross-section
and on the aspect ratio. The maximum cross-wind deflection is given by:

Ymax .

Fe

2
( 2 e ) me s

(17)

In previous equation, s is the logarithmic decrement of structural damping, e (Hz) is


natural frequency of structure in cross-wind direction, me is equivalent mass per unit length and

Fe is equivalent inertia force given by:

Fe max .

q( z ) b( z ) c F ( z ) ( z ) dz

2 ( z ) dz

(18)

Where max . is the maximum amplitude of the modal shape. The Equation 17 can be
written as:

Ymax .
max .
bref.

q ( z ) b( z )
c F ( z ) ( z ) dz
q ref. bref.
1 1
S c S t2
4 2 ( z ) dz

(19)

Where S c and St are the Scruton and Strouhal numbers, respectively. Scruton number is
given by:

Sc

2 s me
2
bref.

(20)

And Strouhal number is given by:

St

e bref.

(21)

Vref.

The vibration amplitude and the limited correlation of load, described by the correlation
length, shows that maximum load does no occur simultaneously along the structure.
Ruscheweyh [5] takes in account this last effect by integrating the maximum amplitude of load
along the entire length, L , so that L 2 is the correlation length that is equal to the integral of
correlation function from zero to infinite. The maximum amplitude of the load is calculated in
the nodal points near the maximum deflection; this is for considering the aeroelastic effects and
the wind action that produces the maximum response. If variations, throughout structure height,
of wind pressure and width of structure are negligible and, still more, assuming that the modal
shape has the same sign, the integral of the numerator of Equation 18 can be approximated by:
h

c
0

( z ) ( z ) dz clat. k p ( z ) dz

(22)

Where clat. is the standard deviation of the load. It has seen that the maximum load can
be equal to the standard deviation multiplied by the peak factor. Ruscheweyh [5] considers the
peak factor by means integration of the modal shape over the effective correlation length, L e ,
defined by:

( z ) dz k ( z ) dz
p

(23)

Le

Thus, the effective correlation length incorporates the influences of the correlation of
load and peak factor. Substituting Equations 22 and 23 in Equation 19, is obtained

Ymax .
1 1
K K w clat .
bref.
S c S t2

(24)

Where K and K w are constants. For example, in the Euro Code [6], these constants are
defined, respectively, as:
h

K max .

( z) dz
4 ( z ) dz
0

(25)

Kw

( z) dz

Le

( z ) dz

(26)

For modes that do not have constant sign, it is assumed that load acts in the same
direction as the modal deflection, so the definition of K and K w should be modifying as
proposed in Reference [4].

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED EXPRESSIONS IN VARIOUS INTERNATIONAL CODES


Some of parameters involved in expressions proposed in the codes have already been defined, so
only the new ones will be defined in the following corresponding expressions.
CANADIAN CODE [7]
This code is based on spectral method. The critical wind velocity is given by:

Vcrit.

e b

(27)

St

The Strouhal number has a value of approximately 1/6 for chimneys.


If the motion is stable, i.e. s ( b 2 / m e ) C 2 , the vortex excited amplitude Ymax can be
estimated using the formula:

Ymax
C 3 ( b 2 / me )

b
s C 2 ( b 2 / me )

b
h

(28)

Where s is the structural damping, C2 0.6 and C 3 1.0 .


AUSTRALIAN/NEW ZEALAND CODE [8]
The critical wind velocity is given by:

Vcrit . 5 e b

For circular cross-sections

(29)

The maximum cross-wind deflection is:

Ymax .

K bt
Sc

(30)

Where K is the factor for maximum tip deflection, taken as 0.5 for circular
cross-sections, and bt is the average breadth of the top third of the structure.
The equivalent static wind force per unit length for chimneys is given as follows:

Fv ( z ) m ( z ) ( 2 e ) 2 ( z ) Ymax .

(31)

Where (z ) is the first mode shape as a function of height z , normalized to unity at

z h , which shall be taken as z h .


2

EURO CODE [6]


Spectral Method
The maximum cross-wind deflection is given by:
Ymax . k p y

(32)

The standard deviation of the displacement related to the width b at the point with the
largest deflection can be calculated by:
y

c1 c12 c 2

(33)

Where the constants c1 and c2 are calculated using Equations 33 and 34, respectively.

c1
c2

a L2
2

Sc
1
4 K a

(34)

b 2 a L2 C c2 b

(35)

me K a S t4 h

Where C c is the aerodynamic constant dependent on cross-sectional shape, and for a


circular cylinder also dependent on the Reynolds number. K a is the aerodynamic damping
parameter, which decreases with increasing turbulence intensity. For a turbulence intensity of
0%, this constant may be taken as K a K a , max . , which gives conservative estimation of
displacements. a L is the normalized limiting amplitude given the deflection of structures with
very low damping.
For a circular cylinder, the constants C c , K a , max . , and a L are given in Table 3 [6].
Resonant Vortex Shedding Method
The maximum cross-wind deflection is given by:

1 1
K mod K lat K w
Ymax . b 2

St Sc

(36)

Where K mod is the mode shape factor, K lat is the lateral force coefficient and K w is the
effective correlation length factor.
The mode shape factor is calculated with:
m


K mod

j 1 l j

( z ) dz

(37)

4 dz
j 1 l j

2
j

Where m is the number of antinodes of the vibrating structure in the considered mode
shape, j (z ) , and l j is the length of the structure between two nodes. If one considers only the
first vibration mode for a cantilever structure, j 1 , m 1 and l j h . If it assumed
that 1 ( z ) z h , then the previous equation gives K mod 5 12 0.13 .
2

The lateral force coefficient is shown in Table 4. K lat 3 2 .4 V crit . V1, L1 K lat , 0

Table 3: Constants for determination of the effect of vortex shedding

Constant

R e 10 5

R e 5 x 10 5

R e 10 6

Cc

0.02

0.005

0.01

K a , max .

0.5

aL

0.4

0.4

0.4

The constants C c and K a , max . are assumed to vary linearly with the logarithm of the
5
5
5
6
Reynolds number for 10 R e 5 x 10 and for 5 x 10 R e 10 .

Table 4: Lateral force coefficient,

K lat , versus critical wind velocity ratio, V crit . V1, L1

K lat

Critical wind velocity ratio

K lat K lat , 0

Vcrit . V1, L1 0.83

K lat 3 2 .4 V crit . V1, L1 K lat , 0

0.83 Vcrit . V1, L1 1.25

K lat 0

1.25 Vcrit . V1, L1

In Table 4, V1, L1 is the mean wind velocity in the centre of the effective correlation
length, L1 , which is obtained from Table 5 as a function of vibration amplitude for first vibration

mode, Y (s1 ) . The basic value K lat , 0 of the lateral force coefficient is given Figure 6 for circular
cylinders.
The effective correlation length factor, for first vibration mode of a cantilever structure, is
given by:

L /b L /b 1 L /b
K w 3 1 1 1 1
1
1
3 1

Table 5: Effective correlation length

Where 1 h b

L1 as a function of vibration amplitude Y (s1 )

Y (s1 ) b

L1 b

0.1

0.1 to 0.6

4.8 1.2 Y (s1 ) b

0.6

12

(38)

Figure 6: Basic value

K lat ,0

of the lateral force coefficient versus Reynolds number

Re (Vcrit . ) for

circular cylinders

DANISH CODE [9]


Danish Code establishes that the effect vortex shedding shall be investigated when ratio
of the largest to smallest cross-wind dimension of the structure, both taken in the plane
perpendicular to the wind flow, exceeds 6. The rules provided in this code are valid only in
structures with slightly varying cross-wind dimensions. If the structure is not heavily damped,
the oscillations will increase when the vortex shedding is in resonance with a mode vibrating
perpendicular to the wind. This occurs at wind velocities close to the resonance wind velocity,
which is calculated by Equation 27. For a circular cylinder S t 0.16 for h / b 6 and

S t 0.20 for h / b 15 . For h / b in the range between 6 and 15, St is assumed to vary as the
logarithm of h / b . For structures with varying cross-wind dimensions, values in Equation 27
corresponding to the point with maximum movement are used.
The effect of resonant vortex shedding depends on the turbulence intensity of the wind.
For 10 min. mean wind velocities larger than approximately 15 m/s the turbulence intensity of
the wind is calculated by:
1
1
I v ( z)
if z z min
(39a)
ct ( z ) z
ln
z0
I v ( z ) I v ( z min )

if z z min

(39b)

Where c t (z ) is the topography factor, which is taken as unity in this paper work. The
roughness length z0 and the minimum height z min are shown in Table 6.
The inertia force per unit length and the maximum deflection in cross-wind direction are
given by Equations 31 and 32, respectively. The standard deviation can be calculates by means
of Equations 33-35, except that:

Table 6: Definition 0f terrain categories and terrain parameters

Terrain category

Roughness length
z0 (m)

Minimum height
z min (m)

0.01

0.05

0.3

1.0

16

Sea with breaking waves, lakes and inlets with


at least 5 km fetch upwind and smooth, flat
country without obstacles.
II Farmland with boundary hedges, occasional
small farm structures, houses or trees.
III Suburban or industrial areas, rows of boundary
hedges.
IV Densely built-up urban areas with buildings of
average height above 15 m.

K a K a , max h v ( I v )

(40)

Where:

hv ( I v ) 1 3 I v ( z )

if 0 I v ( z ) 0.25

(41a)

hv ( I v ) 0.25

if I v ( z ) 0.25

(41b)

The turbulence intensity I v (z ) is determined at the height where the movement of the
structure is at a maximum.
When the standard deviation of the deflection is less than approximately 2% of the crosswind dimension, the peak factor can be calculated with:
0.577
k p 2 ln(600 e )
(42)
2 ln(600 e )
For standard deviation exceeding approximately 20% of the diameter, the peak factor can
be taken as 2 .

CASE OF STUDY: CHIMNEY STRUCTURE


To compare the results obtained by applying expressions proposed in different international
design codes for cross-wind response of cylindrical structures, is proposed as a case study,
calculate the maximum displacement in the cross-wind direction due to the effects of vortex
shedding in a steel chimney with constant thickness. It is assumed that foundation is quit rigid,
which mean that chimney can be considered as cantilever beam without soil-structure
interaction. The design data are:
External diameter, b 3 m
Total height, h 60 m
Shaft mass, m s 740 kg/m
Coating mass, m c 260 kg/m
Total equivalent mass, m e m s m c 1,000 kg/m
Frequency of cross-wind first mode, 1 0.73 Hz
Frequency of cross-wind second mode, 2 4.57 Hz
Mean wind velocity, V 36 m/s

Logarithmic decrement of structural damping, s 0.025


Structural damping, s s 2 0.004
Strouhal number, S t 0.18
Air density, 1.25 kg/m 3
Kinematic viscosity of the air, c 15 x 10 6 m 2 /s
EURO CODE [6]
Resonant Vortex Shedding Method

(3 m) (0.73 Hz)
(3 m) (4.57 Hz)
12.17 m/s ; Vcrit , 2
76.17 m/s Equation 27
0.18
0.18
Vcrit ,1 12.17 m/s 1.25 V 1.25 (36 m/s) 45 m/s The effect vortex shedding need be
investigated
Vcrit , 2 76 .17 m/s 45 m/s The effect vortex shedding need not be investigated
Vcrit ,1

Vcrit ,1

12.17 m/s
0.34 0.83

K lat K lat , 0
Table 4
V
36 m/s
(3 m )(12.17 m/s )
Table 3
Re (Vcrit ,1 )
2.434 x 10 6 K lat K lat , 0 0.2
15 x 10 -6 m 2 /s
K mod 0.13
Equation 37

Sc

2 (0.025) (1,000 kg/m)


4.44
(1.25 kg/m3 ) (3 m) 2

Equation 20

1
1
Ymax (3 m)
(0.13) (0.2) K w 0.542 K w m
2

(0.18) 4.44

1 h b 60 m 3 m 20 K w

L1 L1
L12
1

20 60 10,800

Equation 36
Equation 38

As L1 depends onf Ymax b , one must proceed in an iterative way with equations that
includes this values. Thus, the maximum cross-wind deflection is Ymax 0.366 m .
Spectral Method
Because Re 2.434 x 10 6 10 6

Cc 0.01, K a K a ,max 1 and a L 0.4

4.44
1
0.0517
4 (1)

c1

(0.4) 2
2

c2

(1.25 kg/m 3 ) (3 m) 2 (0.4) 2 (0.01) 2 (3 m)


8.57 x 10 -6
4
1,000 kg/m
1 (0.18) (60 m)

Equation 34
Equation 35

0.0517 (0.0517) 2 8.57 x 10 -6 0.1035

y

b

Equation 33

0.3217 y 0.965 m

Sc
k p 2 1 1.2 arctan 0.75
4 K a

4.44
2 1 1.2 arctan 0.75
1.854
4 (1)

Ymax (1.854 ) (0.965 m ) 1.789 m

Equation 32

DANISH CODE [9]


For calculated the turbulence intensity we assumed that the terrain category is II. Thus,

I v ( z)

1
1
0.141
1 60 m
ln

0.05 m

hv ( I v ) 1 3 (0,141) 0.577

60 m 4 m

Equation 39a

0 0.141 0.25

Equation 41a

K a (1) ( 0 .577 ) 0 .577


c1

(0.4) 2
2

Equation 40

4.44
1
0.031

4
(
0
.
577
)

Equation 34

(1.25 kg/m 3 ) (3 m) 2 (0.4) 2 (0.01) 2 (3 m)


c2
14.859 x 10 -6
4
1,000 kg/m
0.577 (0.18) (60 m)

Equation 35

0.031 (0.031) 2 14.859 x 10 -6 0.0622

y

b

Equation 33

0.2494 y 0.748 m

k p 2 1.414

( 0.748 m 0.2 (3 m ) 0.6 m )

Ymax k p y (1 .414 ) ( 0 .748 m) 1 .058 m

Equation 42
Equation 32

AUSTRALIAN/NEW ZEELAND CODE [8]

Vcrit . 5 (0.73 Hz ) (3 m ) 6.65 m/s

Ymax

Equation 29

0.5 (3 m)
0.338 m
4.44

Equation 30

CANADIAN CODE [7]

1.25 kg / m 3 m 0.60 0.01125


1,000 kg / m
3

0.0039

The motion is unstable

The Canadian Code and ISO 4354:1997(E) [10] point out that in this case, large
amplitudes up to value of b may results. Therefore, Ymax could outcome 3 m.
A summary of the total displacements due to cross-wind response for a chimney with
typical characteristics, applying the wind design codes previously described, is shown in Table 7.
In this table, it can be seen that the results obtained applying the Canadian and the
ISO 4356:1997(E) Codes, can be very conservative. Likewise, the spectral method proposed by
Euro Code ignored the turbulence intensity influence; therefore the results obtained are
conservative as well.
On the other hand, the Danish code certainly considers the turbulence intensity, reason
why the displacements acquired with this code are more reliable. About this, spite of it doesnt
appear in this paperwork, the results that have been obtained in other research works [5, 11-12]
demonstrate that the Danish code provides more accurate values.
Table 7: Results obtained for the case of study

Code
Australian/New Zealand
Canadian and ISO 4356:1997(E)
Euro
Resonant vortex shedding Method
Spectral Method
Danish
Terrain category 2

Ymax (m)
0.338
3
0.366
1.789
1.058

CONCLUSIONS
In this work the methodology proposed by different wind design codes has been analyzed to
calculate the maximum response that can take place in a cylindrical structure in cross wind
direction, due to the vortex shedding. Considering the turbulence intensity and, for hence, the
roughness place in where the structure will be built; the results are more congruent between the
data obtained with experimental tests and the data resultant from the environment vibration tests
made on steel chimneys. In conclusion, the methodology proposed by the Danish code for vortex
shedding effects is the more accurate.

REFERENCES
[1] Tranvik P. and Goran A., Dynamic behaviour under wind loading of a 90 m steel chimney, Alstom
Power Sweden AB, Vaxjo, Report S-0141, 2002.
[2] Achenbach E., Influence of surface roughness on the cross-flow around a circular cylinder, J. Fluid
Mechanics, 1971, 46, p. 321-335.
[3] Norberg C., Fluctuating lift on a circular cylinder: Review and new measurements, J. Fluids Struct.,
2003, 17, 57.
[4] Dyrbye G. and Hansen S., Wind load on structures, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0-471-9565-1, 1997.
[5] Ruscheweyh H. and Sedlacek G., Crosswind vibrations of steel stacks-critical comparison between
some recently proposed codes, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1988, 30,
p. 173-183

[6] BS EN 1991-1-4-4:2005, Euro Code 1: Actions on structures, Part 1-4: General actions-Wind
actions, British Standard, 2005.
[7] NRCC 48192, National Research Council Canada, Users Gudie-NBC 2005 Structural Commentaries
(Part 4 of Division B), ISBN 0-660-19506-2, 1993.
[8] AS/NZS 1170.2:2002, Australian/Neo Zealand Standard, Structural design actions, Part 2: Wind
Actions, 2005.
[9] DS410 E:2004, Code of Practice for Loads for the Design of Structures, Danish Standard
Association, 2004.
[10] ISO 4354:1997(E), International Standard, Wind Actions on Structures, 1997.
[11] Ciesielski R., Gaczek M. and Kawecki J., Observation results of cross-wind response of towers and
steel chimneys, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamic, 1992, 41-44, p. 2205-2211.
[12] Vickery B. J. and Basu R. I., Simplified approaches to the evaluation of the across-wind response of
chimneys, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1983, Vol. 14, p. 153-166.