ACI JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 80-32

Cracking Load for a Wind-Loaded Reinforced Concrete Cooling

Tower

by Kazuya Hayashi and Phillip L. Gould

Since the collapse of several large cooling towers in Ferrybridge,
England, a major concern of designers of such shells has been to in-
sure adequate safety under wind load. Prior to attaining the classical
buckling state, a failure of a reinforced concrete cooling tower under
wind load may be initiated by rapid propagation of cracks in tensile
zones. In this sense, estimating the cracking load is very important for
the design of wind-loaded cooling towers.
This paper shows that the cracking load for a wind-loaded rein-
forced concrete cooling tower may be obtained by a linear elastic fi-
nite element analysis which provides a lower bound to the collapse
load of such shells as calculated by more sophisticated methods.
Keywords: cooling towers; cracking (fracturing;) finite element method; hyper-
bolic parabolic shells; loads (forces); reinforced concrete; shells (structural
forms); static loads; stresses; structural analysis; tensile strength; wind pres-
sure.
by rapid propagation of cracks in tensile zones fol-
lowed by temporary stiffening and, finally, by yielding
of the reinforcement. 1 The methodology required to
establish this failure pattern is a very detailed finite ele-
ment analysis incorporating geometrical and material
nonlinearities and is beyond the scope of normal design
procedures.
This paper's objective is to investigate certain aspects
of the response of a wind-loaded reinforced concrete
cooling tower and estimate the cracking load, which is
a close lower bound to the failure load, by a linear
elastic rotational shell finite element analysis. 2 This is
the present level of state-of-the-art design practice.

Hyperbolic natural draft cooling towers are the larg-

est reinforced concrete thin-shell structures being built
today. Use of cooling towers has increased rapidly in
the last several decades in the United States and Eu-
rope, and natural draft cooling towers are perhaps the
REINFORCED CONCRETE
most prominent structures in many large nuclear and HYPERBOLOIDAL SHELL
fossil power plant facilities. An example of a hyper-
bolic natural draft cooling tower is shown in Fig. 1.
Although a natural draft cooling tower consists of sev-
eral structural units (see Fig. 1), the shell or veil re- WATER
DISTRIBUTION
quires the most attention in design and construction,
SYSTEM
especially with the trend toward higher towers during
the past few years.
In 1965, three of the eight cooling towers at a station AIR INLET

in Ferrybridge, England, collapsed during a fairly

moderate wind. Since this catastrophic failure there
has been a significant amount of research devoted to
understanding the structural response of such shells
under wind load. Buckling under wind load has been
regarded as one of the most important factors to con-
sider in the analysis and design of hyperbolic cooling
Fig. }-Hyperbolic natural draft cooling tower
towers and a possible contributing cause of the Ferry-
bridge collapse. Recently, Mang et a!. investigated a
typical hyperbolic cooling tower under wind load and Received June 16, 1982, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 1983, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
demonstrated that a tower made of reinforced concrete the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the May-June !984 ACI JOUR-
may not buckle in the classical sense but is likely to fail NAL if received by Feb. I, 1984.

318 ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983

Ka;;uya Hayashi was a graduate student in civil engineering at Washington
Table 1 - Coefficients for determining the
University, St. Louis, from 1980 to 1982 when he earned his MSCE. He has a equation of the meridian curve
BS in civil engineering from the National Defense Academy (Japan) and is a z~O z;;,o
first lieutenant in the Japan Ground Self Defense Force. (Hyperbola) (Ellipse)

Phillip L. Gould, Harold D. Jolley Professor and chairman of the civil engi- a -0.01506 -0.28035
neering department at Washington University earned his PhD at Northwestern b 0.0 0.0
University where his research dealt with thin shell structures. Dr. Gould has c 1.0 1.0
published almost 100 technical papers and wrillen three books. He is the d 0.0 0.0
founding editor of the journal, Engineering Structures, and has been awarded e -224.596 252.22546
a senior U.S. Scientist Award by the Alexander V. Humboldt Foundation in f 12563.3411 -44269.0087
West Germany for his work concerning shell structures.

Table 2 - Material properties of concrete and

126.31 It steeP
100.07 ft
Concrete

lit. It ft
E 5.836 X 10' lb/ft'
/-' 0.175
')' 152.6 lb/ft'
p 4. 739 lb · sec' /ft'
J: 65858.4 lb/ft'
Steel
ltl.70 ft
1.0 in /, 8.64 X 10' lb/ft'
I lb/ft' = 47.84 N/m'; llb/ft' = 156.95 N/m'; and lib· sec'/ft' = 514.94
10.11 in N · sec 2/m 4 •

In the finite element analysis, bending and twisting

Fig. 2-Geometry of the analyzed cooling tower (1ft
30.48 em; 1 in. = 2.54 em)
ANALYSIS OF A HYPERBOLIC COOLING
TOWER
In this section, a reinforced concrete cooling tower is
analyzed for dead load and wind load. The dimensions
are typical of the largest towers currently under con-
struction.
Geometry and assumptions
The geometry and the thickness profile of the shell is
shown in Fig. 2. The minimum shell thickness is 8 in.
(20.3 em) which can easily accommodate two layers of
reinforcement in each direction and provide adequate
cover. 3 Above the throat the meridian curve is a hyper-
bola while below the throat it is an elliptical segment.
The equations for these two parts of the meridian curve
are obtained by substituting the coefficients a, b, c, d,
e, and fin Table 1, obtained from the exact geometric
data, into the equation for a general curve of second
order given as
aZ 2
+ bRZ + cR 2 + dZ + eR + f = 0
moments as well as in-plane or membrane stress resul-
tant were computed. It is well established that bending
moments have only a minor effect on properly propor-
= tioned cooling tower shells, which are thickened at the
top and base. Therefore, in the interest of simplicity,
they are not considered in the following design calcu-
lations. However, the in-plane stress resultants re-
ported are found from an analysis based on the bend-
ing theory, and they may be somewhat different from
those which would be found from simple membrane
theory, especially near the boundaries.
Stress resultants N~, N 0 , and N 0., with their respective
sign conventions are shown in Fig. 3. The subscripts¢
and (} are the curvilinear coordinates, the meridional
angle and circumferential angle, respectively.
Dead load analysis
For the finite element analysis, the entire shell is
modeled by 12 doubly-curved ring elements as shown in
Fig. 4. Letting q denote the applied dead load per unit
area of the middle surface of the shell, given by
q = pgh (2)
in which g is the acceleration of gravity, the compo-
nents of the load q in the meridional and normal direc-
(1) tions are

where R = R(Z) is the radius of the shell at vertical co- q., = q sin¢ (3)
ordinate Z as defined on Fig. 2. The simplifying as-
sumption of a circumferentially continuous hinged base Q. = - q cos cf> (4)
was made for this study, although the discrete system
of supporting columns should be considered in actual respectively (see Fig. 3 for sign conventions).
design. 7 The modulus of elasticity E, Poisson's ratio J.t, Results of the dead load analysis are shown in Fig. 5.
;,pecific weight )', mass density p, uniaxial tensile Except for a small region above the throat, the entire
strength of concrete fi, and yield stress of steel f, are shell is in a state of biaxial compression under this
given in Table 2. loading condition.
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983 319
 HEIGHT
~oo'
...
/

400'

200'

I 100' Net>
I
STRESS RESULTANTS I
I
Ne
I
I
Fig. 3-Sign convention for stress resultants I
I

''
NODAL POINT NUMBERS ~ I KIPS/FT)
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
\ 126.:38"
ELEMENT NUMBERS .. -'o - - - - - -

Fig. 5-Stress resultants for the cooling tower under

~
22.91'
19.29'
dead load (1 kip!ft = 14.58 kN/m; 1ft = 30.48 em)
19.29'

~-Rlt
19. 29'
19. 29'
on specialized wind tunnel studies or full-scale mea-
119.19" surements.3
62. 14' ® I In this case, the loading takes the form
I

62.14"
q~ = 0 (a)
q9 = 0 (b)
62.14' ,..,,, Qn = Qnz (Z)H9({)) (c) (5)
I

62.14' The vertical variation qnz is taken from Reference 3

using the 100 year return period isotach chart and Ex-
62.14' posure C.
The circumferential distribution H 0 is usually defined
by normalized values at equal angle increments from
_j the windward direction as shown on Fig. 6. Such a cir-
cumferential distribution of wind pressure may also be
195.80' represented by a Fourier series in the circumferential
angle 0, i.e.
z

Fig. 4-Discretization of the analyzed cooling tower (1

ft = 30.48 em) E d cosjfJ (6)
j =0

Wind pressure coefficients and the corresponding

Wind load analysis
The present method of designing cooling towers for
wind loading is basically pseudostatic, with the magni-
tude and vertical variation of the wind forces taken
from general sources that are documented in codes and
standards and the circumferential distribution based
320
Fourier coefficients used for this wind load analysis are
given in Table 3 (including internal suction). 1
The results of the wind load analysis under the de-
sign wind velocity of V130 = 90 miles per hr (40.2 me-
ters per sec) are shown in Fig. 7, 8, 9, and 10. Fig. 7
shows the variation of the membrane stress resultants
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983
 e-11 o·
-- -)
,
(
I
I
\

...
WINO

O.IOPr
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
400

I
I 300'
I
I

Fig. 6-Circumferential wind pressure distribution

zoo'
along the windward meridian while Fig. 8, 9, and 10
show the variation of the membrane stress resultants
N 0 , N,,, and N 66 , respectively, in the circumferential di- e= o·
rection at selected nodal points as denoted on Fig. 4.
100'
The maximum tensile and compressive meridional
forces tend to coincide with the locations of the peak
Ne
pressure and suctions as shown on Fig. 6.

DETERMINATION OF THE CRACKING LOAD

Principal stress resultants and principal I KIPS/FT) -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
directions
Considering a varying wind load in combination with Fig. 7-Stress resultants for the cooling tower under
a constant dead load, the stress resultants may be writ- wind load (I kip/ft = 14.58 kN/m; I ft. = 30.48 em)
ten in the form
Table 3 - Wind pressure coefficients 1
N 0 v + AN6 ,..

+.:=
(a) () (deg)
Angle from
Nuo + ANnw (b) windward H,
ANu.,w (c) (7) meridian coefficients j

0 -1.56 0
in which, A is the wind load intensity factor and N"", 15 -1.24 I -0.27918
30 -0.74 2 I -0.61978
Now• and Nrlow are meridional, circumferential, and in- 45 -0.03 3 -0.50927
plane shearing stress resultants due to design load wind 60 0.68 4 I -0.09167
75 0.82 5 0.11794
load. Similarly, N"'v and N 110 are meridional and cir- 90 0.37 6 I 0.03333
cumferential stress resultants due to dead load. 105 -0.06 7 -0.04474
Principal stress resultants in a shell element subject to 120 -0.15 8 I -0.00833
135 -0.06 9 I -o.oo9n
the aforementioned membrane stress resultants may be
computed from the theory of elasticity as follows'
\50
165
180
------------~---
'
-0.12
-0.09
-0.10
---~---
IU_
10
II
-0.01356
-0.11597
-0.01~67

(8) in which

in which F Nlloll
c 1
/z (N11 o - Noo)
A Y2 (Non + Nuv) D liz (Nuu - N¢w)
B 1;2 (Now + N,, .. )
J 14 (NOD - N 6 v) 2 and {3 is defined on Fig. 3. Fig. 11 depicts the variation
H Vz (Nov - N"'v) (Now of the maximum principal stress resultant N, in the cir-
N.,w) cumferential direction at several nodal points, while
I '!4 (N, .. - NouV + (N"""V Fig. 12 shows the principal directions for the case of A
= 1.0 (design wind load). Fig. 12 also indicates the
These forces act in two mutually perpendicular direc- load-carrying mechanism of the wind-loaded shell
tions given by without regard to the magnitude of the stress resul-
tants, assuming that the shell is uncracked. In the lower
regions of the shell, the maximum tensile values occur
tan 2{3 = (9)
C + DA at 0 = 0 deg (along the windward meridian).
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983 321
 60 HP. 2

H.P. 4
50
N.P. 6

-40 N.P. 8
N.P. 10

10

0
I IOPS/FT I
-10
9 I DEGREE I
-20

-30

-40

Fig. 8-Meridional stress resultants under wind load (1 kiplft = 14.58 kN/m)

N.P. 2

N.P. 3
6.0
N.P. 6
<4.0
N.P. 9

2.0

Ne
0
I kiPS/FT I 12.0.: 1~::-;--150- ~-
...... _____ _ 180
-2.0
8 I DEGREE I

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

Fig. 9-Circumferential stress resultants under wind load (1 kip/ft
Cracking load
Failure of the reinforced concrete cooling tower may
be initiated by rapid propagation of cracks in tensile
zones and, finally, by yielding of the reinforcement.'
Consequently, for design purposes it seems to be ade-
quate to predict the cracking load, which is thought to
represent a lower bound to the ultimate load. As noted
previously, Fig. 11 indicates that the maximum princi-
pal stress resultant occurs along the windward merid-
ian, (} = 0 deg. Furthermore, Fig. 12 illustrates not
only that cracks along the windward meridian would be
normal to this meridian (horizontal) but also that the
windward meridian represents a trajectory of the prin-
cipal stress resultants. In other words, as far as the
meridional stress resultant is concerned, the windward
direction governs the critical loading condition. Now
322
= 14.58 kN/m)
the load intensity factor for the cracking load for a
varying wind load can be estimated at any level Z by
N~n (Z) + 'Aa (Z) N,.,. (Z, 0) = N,, (Z) (10)
Now (Z, 0) indicates the meridional stress resultant due
to the design wind load along the windward meridian,
0 = 0 deg; 'A,, (Z) is the unknown load intensity factor
for the cracking load; and N". (Z) is the tensile strength
per unit length of the concrete, calculated as the ulti-
mate uniaxial tensile stress of the concrete times the lo-
cal thickness of the shell. Fig. 13 shows the variation of
N""' N¢.,., N., 0 + N""' and N" along the windward me-
ridian. Also indicated is the capacity of the vertical re-
inforcement A,f.. calculated based upon ACl Code
provisions•
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983
 6.0

<4.0

2.0

Ne~
0
I KIPSIFT I 165 180
-2.0
9 I DEGREE I
-4.0

-6.0 H.P. 2

N.P. 4
-8.0
N.P. I
-10.0 N.P. 8

N.P. 10
-12.0

-14.0

Fig. JO-in-plane shearing stress resultants under wind load (1 kiplft kN/m)

30 H.P. 2

N.P. 4

N.P. I
20 N.P .

NP. 10
•
10

9I DEGREE I
0
I KIPS/FTI

-10

Fig. 11-Maximum principal stress resultants, ,\ 1.0 (1 kip/ft 14.58 kN/m)

¢(AJJ == 0.9D + 1.3W (II)
and provided by uniformly spaced bars. Practically,
however, for about the upper one-third of the shell, the
vertical reinforcement is controlled by the 0.35 percent
minimum reinforcement requirement.'
Referring to Fig. 13 at nodal point 9, Z = 207.28 ft
(63.18m), the stress resultants were computed as No"
== -31.21 kips/ft (-455.0 kN/m), N¢" = 56.15 kips/
ft (818.7 kN/m), and N,,. = 43.87 kips/ft (639.6 kN/
m). Substituting into Eq. (10) gives the minimum value
of A,., (Z), A,., = 1.34. It is also of interest to note that
the capacity of the steel reinforcement is not always
even as much as the tensile capcity of the uncracked
ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983
concrete shell. This is most notable in the upper re-
gions which are controlled by the minimum steel pro-
visions. To fully compensate for the tensile capacity of
the concrete lost during cracking, the reinforcement
would practically have to be doubled in this region of
the shell, as indicated on Fig. 13.
On the other hand, the circumferential stress resul-
tants shown in Fig. 7 are much smaller than the tensile
strength of the concrete, and due to these stresses, the
concrete would not be expected to crack prior to the
formation of meridional cracks sufficient to cause fail-
ure. On the other hand, there is evidence that thermally
induced horizontal cracks may appear once the tower is
in service. 7 These were not considered.
323
 t ll i ~ I ~
I
400'
J ~ ~ ~ I
I

....
/I II\\\ \ I I
\//I I l \\\ r I
X
C>

""X
200'
\II I I I\\\ \ I
\Ill I I\\\ \ I
100'

\Ill I II\\ \ I
\ I I I II I I\ \
Fig. 12-Principaf directions(-: tension,-: compression), ,\ = 1.0 (1ft =
30.48 em)

500
CAPA~~T~~-A~f~ I Table 4 - Comparison of load intensity factors
r-----
/STEEL

~ Load intensity factors'

v
,
'
CONCRETE
CAPACITY
TENSILE
Ntc
No reinforcement
Regular
Cracking
1.28 ( 1.34)*
Ultimate
1.28
I
I:
reinforcement 1.34 ( 1.38)* 1.49
:~
I

L_,,,
~
DOUBLED STEEL
CAPACITY I 2A•fy I
Doubled
reinforcement 1.40 2.26
*The value in the parenthesis was obtained in this investigation.

300' area with the concrete area to compute N,,. It can be

'l Ll seen that this relatively simple approach provides a

close estimate of the cracking load and a lower bound
to the ultimate load of the shelL Regarding the contri-
bution of the reinforcement, cracking load is only
\ I moderately affected in both solutions. However, ul-
\I \. timate load may be substantially raised by increasing
l ,\
the reinforcement, as reported by Mang et a!., 1 and
cannot be replicated using the simplified approach of
I\ \
this paper.
i
I
I
\
\
\ Change of wind velocity and shell geometry
N<t>o N<t>D
+
N<t>w\
\ Since the thickness of a cooling tower has been ob-
\
served to have a significant influence on the cracking
load, it may be desirable to thicken the cooling tower
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 I KIPS/F'T I to insure an adequate load intensity factor against
cracking. The cracking load intensity factor was inves-
Fig. 13-Comparison of capacities (1 kip!ft = 14.58 tigated under changes in the shell thickness and design
kN!m; 1ft = 30.48 em) wind velocity. Design wind velocity Y;- 30 was taken as 80
(35.76), 90 (40.23), and 100 (44.69) miles per hr (meters
Table 4 lists the load intensity factors obtained by per sec) and the minimum shell thickness as 7 (17.78),
Mang et a\. 1 for cracking load and ultimate load, 8 (20.32), and 9 (22.86) in. (em), respectively. Fig. 14
with and without regarding reinforcement, along with shows the variation of the critical load intensity factor
the cracking load intensity factors obtained in this in- due to the changes in design wind velocity and shell
vestigation. Here, the cracking load with reinforcement thickness and confirms that thickening is indeed effec-
'A" = I .38 was obtained by using the transformed steel tive in increasing the cracking load.
324 ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983
 CONCLUSIONS
For the cooling tower considered, it was shown that
d"ecklnq ~o•d intenaity fotc:tor
the critical load intensity factor for cracking may bees- 2.0
I no r"eintorc.ment l oOtairwd ~ tr.t,enq et dl ( ll
timated by a linear elastic finite element analysis. This Cr"~kinq loU intensity factor"! ,.._,.rainq
factor agrees closely with the values obtained by a far ,..lnfo,.cemanf ) obf.iMd b~ M•n9 f't cHI I I
1.8
more sophisticated calculation (see Fig. 14 and Table uttlm•N lo.a intensity f~tor

4). It is suggested that the linear elastic approach is an u

obt•ined l)~ t.t•nll •' dl Ill

appropriate method for the design of the cooling tower ""

1.6
under wind load because, up to the cracking load, rein- "'t;
0

forced concrete cooling towers essentially behave line- ~ ft'-457psi

arly, and the cracking load therefore represents a lower ...,..
;jj 1.4
bound to the ultimate load. This is valid, provided that ~
...
the shell does not buckle at a lower load, as confirmed ~
c
by Mang et a!.' A further qualification is that imper- c-<
-' 1.2
fections in construction have been neglected in these -'
~
calculations. While this is beyond the scope of the ;::
t•8" !no reinfof"'C~)
~
present study, it is possible that such imperfections 1.0
could alter the stress resultants significantly and thereby t•7"!no ,-einforc~enT I

affect the calculated minimum Aa.

Fig. 13 shows that the designed steel capacity of only
the middle region of the shell exceeds the concrete ten-
sile capacity of the shell. The steel capacity would have
to be nearly doubled in some regions, as indicated in
Fig. 13, to exceed the concrete tensile capacity of the
shell over the entire shell, which is generally considered
to be desirable in guarding against a strength collapse
failure in reinforced concrete beams. 8
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The many contributions of Professor H. Mang and Mr. C. Gue-
delhoefer to this study are deeply appreciated. Also, the first writer
wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Japan Ground Self De-
fense Force whose support enabled him to pursue this study.
REFERENCES
I. Mang, H. A.; Floegl, H.; Trappe!, F.; and Walter, H., "Wind-
Loaded Reinforced Concrete Cooling Towers: Buckling or Ultimate
Load?," Engineering Structures (Sussex), V. 5, No.3, July 1983, pp.
163-180.
2. Basu, P. K., and Gould, P. L., "SHORE-Ill Shell of Revolu-
tion Finite Element Program-Theoretical Manual," Structural En-
gineering Research Report No. 48, Department of Civil Engineering,
Washington University, St. Louis, Sept. 1977, 70 pp.
3. ACI-ASCE Committee 334, "Reinforced Concrete Cooling
80 90 100
DESIGN WIND VEJ.OCITY I MPH I
Fig. 14-Variation of the critical load intensity factor
(1 psi = 6896.55 Pa; 1 in.= 2.54 em; and 1 MPS
0.447 mps)
Tower Shells-Practice and Commentary," (ACI 334.2R-77)(Revised
1982), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1982, I 0 pp.
4. Thorn, H. C. S., "New Distribution of Extreme Winds in the
United States," Proceedings, ASCE, V. 94, ST7, July 1968, pp. 1787-
1801.
5. Hayashi, K ., and Gould, P. L, "Some Aspects of the Response
of a Wind-Loaded Reinforced Concrete Cooling Tower," Structural
Engineering Research Report No. 63, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, Washington University, St. Louis, May 1982, 108 pp.
6. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 318-77)," American Concrete Institute, De-
troit, 1977, 102 pp.
7. Larrabee, R. D.; Billington, D.P.; and Abel, J. F., "Thermal
Loading of Thin-Shell Concrete Cooling Towers," Proceedings,
ASCE, V. 100, ST12, Dec. 1974, pp. 2367-2383.
8. Large, George E., and Chen, T. Y., Reinforced Concrete De-
sign, 2nd Edition, Ronald Press, New York, 1957, 527 pp.

ACI JOURNAL I July-August 1983 325