2007 Structures Congress: New Horizons and Better Practices © 2007 ASCE

Seismic Design of Concrete Chimneys - State of Practice

Javeed Munshi and Sanj Malushte

Bechtel Power Corporation, Frederick, MD 21703

ABSTRACT

Codes and standards have generally provided conservative guidelines for design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by U OF ALA LIB/SERIALS on 03/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of tall reinforced concrete chimneys because of their inherent brittle nature and
low redundancy. This paper reviews the state-of-the-practice for seismic design
of concrete chimneys. The codes and standards reviewed in this paper are the
American Concrete Institute's Committee for Design and Construction of
Reinforced Concrete Chimneys (ACI 307-98), the lnternational Committee on
Industrial Chimneys (CICIND 2001), Eurocode 8-6 (2005), lnternational
Conference of Building Officials (UBC 1997) and the lnternational Building Code
(IBC 2006). The paper discusses the provisions presented in the above codes
and standards and compares them from the point of view of design philosophies,
expected chimney behavior, required detailing, economy of design and design
rationality. Based on this review, some concluding remarks are presented for
design of RC chimneys in the United States.

Introduction

Reinforced concrete chimneys are used to help disperse combustion by-products

such as nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and other particulate
matter produced during the combustion of fossil fuels and other industrial
processes. The chimneys serve to protect the health of people in the immediate
vicinity and increase the height at which pollutants are discharged to help proper
dispersion without jeopardizing the air quality in general. In earlier days, RC
chimneys would typically have a masonry liner with or without an annular space
between the two. One of the problems that often resulted in this type of
construction was corrosion of RC shell as a result of condensation of the highly
acidic flue gases which escape into the annular space between the brick liner
and the chimney. Because of this and other industry pressures to minimize labor
cost, the RC chimneys with brick liners are not used as frequently in the US as
they used to be in early part of the 2omcentury. Steel and FRP liners are now
more frequently used in place of masonry liners. RC chimneys with various
types of liners including brick are still widely used in Europe and Asia. For
heights exceeding 300 ft, RC chimneys are favored because of their inherent
stiffness.

ACI 307- 98 Approach

Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys (ACI 307-98)

standard presents material, construction and design requirements for cast-in-
place and precast reinforced concrete chimneys. Included are provisions for

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

New Horizons and Better Practices
 2007 Structures Congress: New Horizons and Better Practices © 2007 ASCE

wind, thermal and seismic loading. This standard is unique in the sense that it
gives both the loading criteria (load combinations) and strength requirements for
design of RC chimneys. The standard explicitly refers to ACI 318 for strength
design and detailing of reinforced concrete sections.

Prescriptive Requirements. ACI 307-98 gives some prescriptive requirements for

design of RC chimneys in Chapter 4 titled Service Loads and General Design
Criteria. These pertain to minimum wall thickness requirements, thickening
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by U OF ALA LIB/SERIALS on 03/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

requirements through openings and requirements for reinforcement layout and

minimum reinforcement details including details of reinforcement around
openings.

Design for Earthquakes. Section 4.3 of ACI 307-98 outlines provisions for
earthquake design of chimneys. It specifies a dynamic response spectrum
analysis or modal method in conjunction with acceleration coefficients of ASCE
7-95. The standard calls for a site specific spectrum consistent with 90 percent
probability of not being exceeded in 50 years with a 5% damping. In the absence
of site specific spectrum, the standard allows the use of an elastic design
spectrum presented in this standard normalized for Ig peak ground acceleration
and 5% damping suitable for firm soil conditions. The spectrum would be scaled
down by appropriate site acceleration coefficients given in ASCE 7 and modified
appropriately for site soil conditions.

It is worth noting that commentary for Section 4.3 indicates that a ductility factor
of 1.33 is built into the scale factors recommended for use in Table 4.3.2 of this
standard. This ductility factor is equivalent to an effective response modification
factor R of 1.33 with the elastic design spectrum approach.

Section 5.3 of this standard gives load combinations for design of chimneys
which are consistent with the design and detailing provisions specified in this
standard. A load factor of 1.43 is used for earthquake loading. It is obvious that
use of this load factor and the associated R = 1.33 are likely to result in an elastic
response of the structure during a design earthquake (1 in 475 year event).
This standard does not seem to make any distinction in the required detailing
when it comes to designing a chimney for earthquake or wind forces. Note that a
load factor of 1.3 is used for wind loads.

The philosophy of designing chimneys to remain near elastic during a design

seismic event is consistent with other prescriptive design and detailing
requirements discussed above. Note that this standard does not call for special
seismic detailing of Chapter 21 of ACI 318. This design philosophy is based on
the notion that chimneys are non redundant structures which should not be
allowed to go through significant inelastic excursions during a design seismic
event because this may lead to significant disruption in their function and even
collapse.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

New Horizons and Better Practices
 2007 Structures Congress: New Horizons and Better Practices © 2007 ASCE

Section 4.5 of ACI 307-98 limits the total lateral deflection of chimneys to 0.33%
of height. This limit, although small when compared to the limit specified for
building structures (1-2%), is quite generous given the relatively stiff nature of
concrete chimneys.

ClClND 2001 Approach

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by U OF ALA LIB/SERIALS on 03/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

International Committee on Industrial Chimneys (CICIND 2001) provides a good

source of international perspective on design and construction of chimneys. It
compares the US, British and other European codes and standards. It also
provides its own recommendations for design and construction of reinforced
concrete chimneys.

The ClClND code recommends dual performance criteria to result in chimneys

that are both economical and sufficiently ductile to survive an extreme
earthquake event:

1. Serviceability Limit State (SLS) - Design of chimney elastically to resist

earthquake loads considered reasonable for a serviceability limit state
earthquake event (SLS).

2. Structural Stability Limit State (SSLS) - Design of chimney with sufficient

ductility so that it will survive an extreme earthquake event without collapse at
structural stability limit state (SLSS). In regions of high seismicity, it recommends
ductility detailing consistent with R = 2.

The design basis earthquake has a 475 year return period (10% chance of
exceedence in 50 years). The seismic design forces are calculated by
multiplying the seismic loads by an importance factor and dividing by the
structural response modification factor (R). Importance factors of 1 and 1.4 are
specified for Class 1 and Class 2 structures, respectively. Response
modification factors of 1 and 2 are recommended.

There are no detailing requirements for R = 1 at serviceability limit state. The

following specific detailing requirements are mentioned for R = 2 to ensure
ductile behavior:

1. Use moment overstrength of 1.5 at the base, in the vicinity of openings

and in the foundation, to prevent flexural failure at these locations.
2. Use shear overstrength depending upon the location along the height of
the chimney (2.5 along 0-10% of chimney height, 2.2 along 10 - 80% and
1.0 along the remainder height).

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

New Horizons and Better Practices
 2007 Structures Congress: New Horizons and Better Practices © 2007 ASCE

3. Ensure adequate curvature capacity in the windshield over the range 10-
80% of chimney height to exceed 0.03 to be achieved by reducing the
longitudinal reinforcement percentage with increase in the axial stress.
4. Ensure moment capacity of the chimney for most part exceeds the
cracking moment to allow plastic hinges of reasonable length to develop.
5. Use ductile longitudinal reinforcement with ultimate strain in excess of
10%.
6. Staggered longitudinal splices so that no greater than 50% of the bars are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by U OF ALA LIB/SERIALS on 03/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

spliced at any cross-section.

Eurocode 8-6 (EC8 - 6) 2005

Eurocode 8-6 (EC8 - 6) published in 2005. provides the most comprehensive

guidelines for'design of chimney type structures. The general philosophy of the
code is that these structures may or may not be designed to dissipate energy. A
consistent behavior factor (equivalent to R factor of IBC) should be used to
ensure a particular behavior. The behavior factor is a parameter indicative of the
energy dissipation capacity of the structure similar to strength reduction factor
used in the US codes.

The code also gives four different importance factors ranging from 0.8 to 1.4 to
be assigned to a structure based on its importance and required level of
functionality after the earthquake.

In high seismic regions, the code allows a reduction of design seismic force as a
result of ductility consistent with a maximum R = 2.5. A strength level consistent
with an effective R = 1.5 is maintained away from the plastic hinge region and for
structures not designed for dissipative behavior.

EC8-6 has the following four fundamental requirements for design of chimneys:

1. The structure should not collapse to jeopardize life safety and safety of
adjacent facilities.
2. The damage should be limited in order to maintain the continuity of the
operation of plants, industries and communication systems. Note this
does not apply to nonstructural components.
3. The damage limitation requirement refers to a seismic action having a
probability of exceedence higher than a design event.
4. In low seismic regions, the chimneys may be designed as essentially non-
dissipative, taking no account of hysteretic energy dissipation. The
behavior factor should not be greater than I.5, which accounts for
overstrength.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

New Horizons and Better Practices
 2007 Structures Congress: New Horizons and Better Practices © 2007 ASCE

For structures designed for dissipative behavior with behavior factor greater
than 1.5, this code has certain design and detailing requirements to ensure
dissipative behavior without collapse:

To ensure dissipative behavior in RC chimneys, a basic behavior factor

of 2.5 is recommended for the critical regions at the base of the
chimney to a height of D above base, from an abrupt change of section
to a height D and a height D above and below from an opening (where
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by U OF ALA LIB/SERIALS on 03/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

D is the chimney diameter). This behavior factor would become 2.0 if

the chimney has an opening which causes a reduction in moment of
inertia by 3O0/0 or higher.

Note that the critical regions have to be designed for minimum

curvature ductility by providing confinement reinforcement. The code
gives detailed instructions on curvature ductility and the plastic hinge
regions.
To avoid implosive spalling of concrete at the inner surface, within the
critical sections defined above, the ratio of the outer diameter to
thickness of shell should not exceed 20.

The code recommends that horizontal construction joints should be

avoided in the critical regions.

It gives general reinforcement requirements, minimum reinforcement in

horizontal and vertical directions, maximum spacing limits and
minimum reinforcement around openings.

The code requires that for chimneys with openings within critical
regions with (opening) horizontal size greater than thickness of the
chimney wall, both horizontal components of the ground motion need
to be taken into account. The vertical component may be disregarded.

EC8-6 requires that rotational components of the earthquake should

also be taken into account for structures taller than 80 m in regions
where the acceleration component exceeds 0.25g.

UBC - 1997 Approach

International Conference of Building Officials (UBC 1997) classifies chimneys as

special occupancy structures although an importance factor of 1 is assigned to
them. This code also allows a relatively high R = 2.9 along with a minimum base
shear based on acceleration co-efficient for a 475 year event. No specific
detailing is required. Note this code does allow use of a nationally approved
standard for design of non building structures like chimneys subject to limitations

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

New Horizons and Better Practices
 2007 Structures Congress: New Horizons and Better Practices © 2007 ASCE

indicated in the code (UBC 97). It is not clear though how the ACI 307-98
standard would be used in conjunction with UBC 1997 given that ACI 307-98
specifies its own loading criteria (load combinations and R factors) for design of
chimneys which are not the same as in UBC 1997.

IBC 2006 Approach

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by U OF ALA LIB/SERIALS on 03/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The International Building Code (IBC 2006) refers to the load document of the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7 -05) for design of non building
structures like chimneys. Chimneys, as part of typical power generating stations,
can be classified under occupancy categories Ill (structures that present
substantial hazard to public life). Per ASCE 7, the corresponding seismic use
groups for this occupancy category is II with importance factor of 1.25.

ASCE 7- 05 recommends a value of R = 3 for chimneys with no specific

requirements for detailing. Note that this standard allows the use of ACI 307-98.
However, ACI 307-98 is based on ASCE 7-95 for seismic design spectrum; as
such, it is not consistent with ground motion requirements of IBC 2006lASCE 7-
05.

Comparison of Design and Detailing Provisions

It is clear from the above Tables 1 and 2 that ACI 307-98 would essentially result
in elastic behavior under the design earthquake and as such no special detailing
is required. But this design philosophy is simplistic and potentially dangerous
given the uncertain nature of the earthquake and the consequent chimney
response. This approach would result in relatively uneconomical design in
moderate to high seismic regions.

The ClClND 2001 approach aims at producing an inelastic behavior in the

chimney in high seismic regions. But at the same time it requires the use of
prescribed overstrength factors of 1.5 for flexure and 2.5 for shear near the
bottom of the chimney thus limiting the extent of any potential inelastic action.
This approach also requires some special detailing for energy dissipation and
collapse prevention which would come handy given the uncertainty associated
with the earthquakes and the consequent response of a non redundant chimney.

The Eurocode 2005 approach is more rational in terms of potential inelasticity

expected and the corresponding special detailing required for energy dissipation
and collapse prevention of RC chimneys. Ordinary chimneys (designed for lower
importance factors of 0.8 and 1.O) are expected to have controlled damage.
However, important chimneys (with importance factors of 1.2 and 1.4) are
expected to have limited or no damage under the design event. This code also

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

New Horizons and Better Practices
 2007 Structures Congress: New Horizons and Better Practices © 2007 ASCE

attempts to address the plastic hinge formation and the necessary curvature
ductility requirements through rational technical approach.

The UBC 1997 and IBC 2006lASCE 7-95, if used exclusively without aid from
ACI 307-98 are seemingly dangerous because although inelastic activity is
expected, no special detailing is required for energy dissipation or collapse
prevention of RC chimneys. Given that both recommend using a nationally
approved standard, it is unlikely that such a situation will actually occur.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by U OF ALA LIB/SERIALS on 03/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

However, as mentioned above, it is not clear how one would use these two
documents with ACI 307-98 given that ACI 307-98 gives its own load
combinations and R factor which are consistent with the rest of the design and
detailing it provides for RC chimneys but not with either UBC 1997 or IBCIASCE-
7 documents.

It is also worth noting that studies of past chimney failures (Kilic and Sozen) have
indicated that even though a chimney is designed per ACI 307-98, it is important
to provide adequate detailing in terms of sufficient splice lengths and
confinement of reinforcement in areas of potential hinging. Also, a consistent
margin of supplied vs. required strength is necessary along the height of the
chimney to eliminate stress concentration at any potentially weak location.
These are important considerations that should be part of any rational seismic
design approach for RC chimneys.

Concluding Remarks

This paper discusses the seismic design of RC chimneys according to the

American Concrete Institute's Committee for Design and Construction of
Reinforced Concrete Chimneys (ACI 307-98), the lnternational Committee on
Industrial Chimneys (CICIND 2001), Eurocode 8-6 (2005), lnternational
Conference of Building Officials (UBC 1997) and the lnternational Building Code
(IBC 2006). The various relevant and important provisions of these documents
are compared to understand the design philosophies, expected chimney
behavior and required detailing. It is found that for application in high seismic
regions, ACI 307-98 may not have the necessary reinforcement details for
collapse prevention and will also result in relatively uneconomical design. The
ClClND approach is safe in the sense that limited or no inelastic activity is
expected and yet special seismic detailing is provided. The European approach
seems to be rational and scientific and would allow construction of relatively
economical chimneys in high seismic regions. The use of UBC 1997 or IBC
2006lASCE 7-05, as stand alone documents for design of chimneys in high
seismic regions, is not recommended as they can lead to potentially unsafe
designs. Until more rational guidelines are developed, it would be prudent to use
methods similar to those proposed in Eurocode or ClClND for design of
chimneys in high seismic regions. Meanwhile, ACI 307-98 needs to be revised

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

New Horizons and Better Practices
 2007 Structures Congress: New Horizons and Better Practices © 2007 ASCE

and made compatible with the loading criteria of IBC 2006lASCE 7-05 in order to
make it more relevant for design of RC chimneys in high seismic regions.

References

1. ACI 307-98, Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys,

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by U OF ALA LIB/SERIALS on 03/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2. ASCE 7-05, Minimum Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE,
Reston, VA.
3. Eurocode (EC8-6) and BS-EN 1998-6:2005, Design of Structures for
Earthquake Resistance - Part 6: Towers, masts and chimneys.
4. IBC 2006, lnternational Building Code, lnternational Code Council, Inc.
5. The ClClND Chimney Book, Industrial Chimneys of Concrete or steel,
edited by CICIND, Zurich, Switzerland (2005).
6. UBC 1997, Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, lnternational Conference of
Building Officials, 1992.
7. Kilic, S. A and Sozen, M. A (2003), "Evaluation of Effect of August 17,
1999, Marmara Earthquake on Two Tall reinforced Concrete Chimneys",
ACI Structural Journal, May-June, 2003.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

New Horizons and Better Practices
 2007 Structures Congress: New Horizons and Better Practices © 2007 ASCE

Table 1 Comparison of Design and Detailing Provisions

Code1 Design Design R I Detailing Drift

Standard Philosophy Earthquake Requirements Limit
1 General
ACI 307-98 Chimney to I in 475 year -1 .02 prescriptive, 0.33%
remain elastic event No special height
seismic detailing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by U OF ALA LIB/SERIALS on 03/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ClClND Serviceability 1.O No special

2001 Llimit State 1 detailing
I in 475 year and
event 1.4 NS

Structural 2.0 Special seismic

Stability detailing
Limit State

Nondissipative 1.5 No special

Eurocode Behavior 0.8 detailing 0.50%
(EC8-6) I in 475 year height
2005 event To

Dissipative 2.5 1.4 Special

Behavior seismic detailing
2.08

UBC 1997 Inelastic I in 475 year 2.9 1 No special NS

event detailing

IBC 20061 Inelastic 213 of 2,475 3.0 1.25 No special NS

ASCE 7-05 year event detailing

1. Overstrength factor
2. Effective R based on ratio of LF = 1.43 and R = 1.33 (LF = load factor)
3. Assumed inherent overstrength in design = 1.5
4. Prescribed maximum overstrength (used as additional load factor) to prevent flexural and
shear failure at the base.
5. R = response modification factor
6. 1 = importance factor
7. NS = not specified
8. For opening which results in stiffness reduction of 30% or more.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

New Horizons and Better Practices
 2007 Structures Congress: New Horizons and Better Practices © 2007 ASCE

Table 2 Effective lnelastic Behavior and Detailing Requirements

Codelstandard RII R 1 Special Detailing I Remarks

ACI 307- 98 0.67 None I Elastic with no s~ecial

detailing
ClClND 2001
I = 1.0 0.89' Yes Essentially elastic with
1 = 1.4 0.63' special detailing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by U OF ALA LIB/SERIALS on 03/29/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Eurocode (EC8-6)
2005
I = 0.8
I = 1.0
1 = 1.2 Yes lnelastic with special
I = 1.4 detailing
With Opening
I = 0.8
I = 1.0 Yes
I = 1.2
I = 1.4

UBC 1997 None b lnelastic with no

special detailing
IBC 20061
ASCE 7- 05 lnelastic with no
1 = 1.25 None special detailing
I I I
1. Also includes the assumed inherent overstrength factor of 1.5.

Copyright ASCE 2007 Structures Congress 2007

New Horizons and Better Practices