Steel Stacks: Design Practices

ExxonMobil Proprietary
CIVIL WORKS Section Page

XXIX-J 1 of 41
STEEL STACKS
DESIGN PRACTICES December, 2003
Changes shown by ➧
CONTENTS
Section Page
SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................4
GLOBAL PRACTICES.............................................................................................................................4
DESIGN PRACTICES .............................................................................................................................4
OTHER REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................4
OBJECTIVE.....................................................................................................................................................5
BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................................5
SPECIFYING STACKS....................................................................................................................................5
CHOICE OF STACK................................................................................................................................5
Steel or Concrete?................................................................................................................................5
Free-standing, Guyed or Tower Supported? ........................................................................................6
DATA REQUIRED BY THE DESIGNER .................................................................................................6
Environmental Data ..............................................................................................................................6
Description of Plant ..............................................................................................................................6
Operating Conditions ............................................................................................................................6
Possible Future Change of Operating Conditions.................................................................................7
Unplanned Hazards ..............................................................................................................................7
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................................................7

ALONG-WIND LOADS ............................................................................................................................7
DYNAMIC RESPONSE TO THE WIND ..................................................................................................9
Cross-Wind Flexural Response ............................................................................................................9
Damping .............................................................................................................................................10
Aerodynamic Interference...................................................................................................................11
Effect on Cross-Wind Response.........................................................................................................12
Ovalling Effects...................................................................................................................................12
Fatigue................................................................................................................................................13
EARTHQUAKE LOADS.........................................................................................................................13
INTERNAL PRESSURE CHANGES .....................................................................................................13
THERMAL EFFECTS ............................................................................................................................13
CHEMICAL EFFECTS AND ACID CORROSION..................................................................................14
DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................................................................................15

SAFETY FACTORS ..............................................................................................................................15
DYNAMIC STABILITY ...........................................................................................................................15
TEMPERATURE LIMITS .......................................................................................................................15
CORROSION ALLOWANCES ..............................................................................................................15
DESIGN .........................................................................................................................................................15
DESIGN STRESSES.............................................................................................................................15
Longitudinal Flexural Strength ............................................................................................................15
Circumferential Stresses.....................................................................................................................17
EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

Section Page CIVIL WORKS
XXIX-J 2 of 41
STEEL STACKS
December, 2003 DESIGN PRACTICES
Computer Software ............................................................................................................................17

CONTROLLING FLEXURAL DYNAMIC RESPONSE...........................................................................17
Aerodynamic Spoilers ........................................................................................................................17
Tuned-Mass Dampers........................................................................................................................17
Impact Dampers .................................................................................................................................18
Active Dampers ..................................................................................................................................18
Guy Ropes .........................................................................................................................................18
Tying Closely Spaced Stacks .............................................................................................................18
STIFFENER DESIGN............................................................................................................................18
DESIGN OF BOLTED CONNECTIONS................................................................................................19
BASE AND FOUNDATION DESIGN.....................................................................................................19
OPENINGS ...........................................................................................................................................20
GUY ROPE DESIGN.............................................................................................................................20
STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AND STAYED STACKS..........................................................................20
FLUE GAS FLOW CONTROL DEVICES ..............................................................................................21
Turning Vanes ....................................................................................................................................21
Top Restrictors ...................................................................................................................................21
Quench Louvers .................................................................................................................................21
INTERNAL LININGS .............................................................................................................................21
EXTERNAL INSULATION.....................................................................................................................21
NOMENCLATURE ........................................................................................................................................23
FIGURES
Figure 1 Available Stack Designs ......................................................................................................................25

Figure 2 Wind Pressure On A Cylinder..............................................................................................................26
Figure 3 Relationship Between Scruton Number and Top Amplitude...............................................................27
Figure 4 Wind Direction for Maximum Response .............................................................................................28
Figure 5 The Reduction Of The Strouhal Number Caused By A Nearby Chimney...........................................29
Figure 6 Circumferential Modal Pattern ............................................................................................................29
Figure 7 Acid Dewpoints In Stack Gases .........................................................................................................30
Figure 8 Phase Diagram – Sulfuric Acid-Water Vapor......................................................................................31
Figure 9 NPL Helical Strake .............................................................................................................................31
Figure 10 B.N.M.I. Pendulum Damper..............................................................................................................32
Figure 11 “Stelcon” Oil Bath Damper................................................................................................................32
Figure 12 General Arrangement of the “Kabe” Dynamic Vibration Absorber System ........................................33
Figure 13 Illustration of Prototype Vibration Absorber ......................................................................................33
Figure 14 Roll-Ring Damper.............................................................................................................................34

XXIX-J 3 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 15 Chain Damper Configuration ........................................................................................................... 35

Figure 16 Self-Supporting Multi-Flue Chimney ................................................................................................ 36
Figure 17 “Intelligent” System ......................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 18 Tied Stacks ....................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 19 Effective Reinforcement foR External Stiffener Ring ........................................................................ 38
Figure 20 Base Plate ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 21 Wind Directions for Design of Guyed Chimneys .............................................................................. 39
Figure 22 Horizontal Support System for Steel Liner ....................................................................................... 40
Figure 23 Aerodynamically Efficient Duct Entry Turning Vanes....................................................................... 41
Revision Memo
12/03 Technical Update to include the latest design provisions from ASCE STS-1.
Highlights of this revision are:
1. The fastest mile wind speed previously used with ASME STS-1 (1992) has
been changed to a 3-second gust.
2. Long and cross wind calculations have been updated to match ASME STS-1
(2000).
3. Additional damping information added.
4. Updated provisions for long and cross wind interference affects.
5. Provided information regarding crosswind fatigue calculations.

XXIX-J 4 of 41
STEEL STACKS
SCOPE
This section covers the specification, structural design and analysis of steel stacks of circular cross section and their
foundations. This DP is intended as a supplementary guide to GP 04-05-01 (Steel Stacks), but it is not intended to supercded
the GP and referenced codes and standards in the GP and this DP. It also covers the design of any linings installed inside the
stack and / or insulation applied outside the stack. The section does not cover the thermal design of the stack, aimed at
deriving its height, diameter and draught conditions.
While the section is aimed primarily at the specification and design of new stacks, it can also be used to assist in inspecting
existing stacks and in developing solutions to problems discovered in existing stacks.
REFERENCES
GLOBAL PRACTICES
GP 04-01-03, Design Loads for Structures
GP 04-05-01, Steel Stacks
GP 04-06-01, Reinforced Concrete Foundations, Anchor Bolts and Grout
GP 19-01-01 Paint and Protective Coatings
GP 19-03-03, Castable Linings for Fired Heaters
DESIGN PRACTICES
XXIX-A Civil Design Data
OTHER REFERENCES
1. Vickery, B.J., Wind Loads and Design for Chimneys, CICIND Report, Vol. 14, No. 2, September 1998.
2. Pritchard, B.N., Steel Chimney Oscillations: A Comparative Study of Their Reported Behavior Versus Predictions Using
Existing Design Techniques - Proceedings of International Conference on Design Against Wind-induced Failure, Bristol,
U.K., 1984.
3. CICIND - Model Code for Steel Chimneys (Revision 1), 1999.
4. Fluctuating Response of Circular Cylinders in Small Groups in Fluid Flow - A Discussion and Guide to Data Available –
Engineering, Sciences Data Unit Item No. 79025, 1979.
5. Ruscheweyh, H., Problems With In-Line Stacks: Experience With Full Scale Objects, Proceedings of International
Conference on Design Against Wind-induced Failure, Bristol, U.K., 1984.
6. CICIND Model Code for Concrete Chimneys, Part C - Steel Liners.
7. StackDes (v3-19). A Program to Design Steel Stacks. MECA. Broken Arrow, OK, 2003.
8. AISC, S335 Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, 1989.
9. DIN 4133, Steel Stacks - German Industrial Standard.
10. Matsumoto, T., and Abiru, H., Prevention of Wind Induced Vibration of Steel Chimneys by Heavily Damped Vibration
Absorbers, 6th International Chimney Conference, CICIND, Brighton, U.K., 1988.
11. Stevick, G.R., and Burke, B.G., Hanging Chain Impact Dampers: Field Test Results and Design Procedure, 6th
International Chimney Conference, CICIND, Brighton, U.K., 1988.
12. Warren, R.W., Shell to Flue Impact Damping for Dual-Wall & Multiflue Chimneys - CICIND REPORT, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1994.
13. Carotti, A., Automatic Control of Drift Vibrations in Steel Stacks Subject to Bernard-Karman Vortex Discharges, 5th
International Chimney Congress, CICIND, Essen 1984.
14. ACI 307, Standard Practice for the Design and Construction of Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete Chimneys, American
Concrete Institute.1995.
15. ASME STS-1, Steel Stacks, 2000.
16. Ruscheweyh, H., Kammel, C., and Verwiebe, C., 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 -
CICIND Report, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1996.
17. API 560, Fired Heaters For General Refinery Service, American Petroleum Institue, 2003.
18. ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures, 2002
19. AISC, Supplement No. 1 to the Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, 2001

XXIX-J 5 of 41
STEEL STACKS
OBJECTIVE
The intent of this section is to provide a relatively simple explanation of the various hazards faced by steel stacks and to amplify
and explain the design requirements of GP 04-05-01.
It is hoped that, by using this guide:
• The purchaser will be able to write a specification that will truly reflect the needs and aspirations of the owner.
• ExxonMobil's supervising engineer will understand the work of the specialist designer.
• Inspectors will efficiently inspect existing stacks and develop solutions to problems found.
BACKGROUND
The design of steel stacks is normally carried out by a specialist stack builder, following the requirements of a specification,
written by the purchaser. ExxonMobil's involvement with new stacks will normally be in helping to develop the specification and
supervising the work of the designer.
Provided he/she follows the requirements of GP 04-05-01, an experienced stack designer should be able to design a stack that
is safe, fully operable and which should provide trouble-free service throughout its design life. However, this expectation can
only be realized if the designer is fully aware of the Owner's needs, which includes by implication, all relevant information about
the plant served by the stack.
Unfortunately, in the past, purchasers have often not been aware of the necessity to convey this information in full to the stack
builder at the time of inviting bids. Also, while preparing their bids, stack builders have been reluctant to risk jeopardizing their
competitive position by inquiring more closely into the purchaser's needs. As a result, many stacks have been built which
perform badly purely because the designer was not fully aware of the owner's needs and the full extent of the operating
conditions.
The means by which the purchaser makes his needs known is the specification and a major aim of this section is to help
ensure that stack specifications provide all of the information that a specialist designer needs to design a safe, economic and
trouble-free stack.
Besides the problems discussed above, which are common to many plant equipment items, steel stacks are subject to certain
specific hazards. One major such hazard is its potential for dynamic response to the wind. While this phenomenon has been
known and studied for a century or more, it is only recently that researchers have developed sufficient knowledge to propose
design methods (Reference 1) capable of approximating the self induced cross-wind response of a single stack or its response
to aerodynamic interference by a nearby stack or tower. Even so, currently there is no reliable parameter which takes account
of aerodynamic interference by a nearby stack or tower. In the past, designers used a number of parameters, some more
reliable than others (Reference 2), to design both single and grouped stacks. As a result, some older stacks have histories of
troublesome movement in the wind, for which various remedies have been used. These remedies will be discussed and
analyzed later in this section.
Another major hazard which must be considered in the design of a steel stack is chemical attack. In a refinery or chemical
plant, this will normally take the form of attack by condensing sulfur oxides (“acid corrosion").
These factors are fully taken into account in GP 04-05-01, which is based upon the ASME STS-1 Code entitled Steel Stacks.
This, in turn, is heavily influenced by the CICIND Model Code for Steel Chimneys (Reference 3), first published in May 1988.
(CICIND is the “Comite International des Cheminees Industrielles," an organization established in 1973 by chimney builders,
designers and owners, to study chimney problems and harmonize the rather disparate national codes for their design and
construction that existed at that time. The mechanism by which this was done was the development of “Model Codes.")
SPECIFYING STACKS
CHOICE OF STACK
Stacks can be of reinforced concrete, steel or plastic. They can be unlined or lined. They are normally self-supported and
designed as cantilevers, fixed at the base. Sometimes, however, they are supported within a steelwork structure or by guy
ropes or are stayed against an adjacent building. The choice of chimney type will be determined by cost and construction
schedule and by its suitability for the required duty.
Steel or Concrete?
Steel stacks are usually more economic than concrete when the top diameter is less than 13 ft (4 m) and the height is 230 ft
(70 m) or less. Stacks greater than 330 ft (100 m) tall are usually more economic in concrete than steel. Between heights of
230 ft and 330 ft (70 m and 100 m), the cost differential is very small and will be influenced by local conditions. Steel stacks
can normally be designed, fabricated and erected faster than concrete chimneys of equivalent height. They also have a better
record with regard to maintenance. If the cost differential is small, therefore, a steel stack should normally be chosen in

XXIX-J 6 of 41
STEEL STACKS
preference to the concrete alternative. If the top diameter exceeds 13 ft (4 m), delivery of prefabricated stack sections
becomes difficult, with consequent increases in cost.
Free-standing, Guyed or Tower Supported?

Guyed stacks can be more slender, lighter and, consequently, are often more economic than free-standing stacks. The guy
ropes, however, may pose awkward restrictions on operations around the stack and are, in consequence, usually avoided in
the confined spaces available in process plants.
The wind loading on the structure encompassing a tower-supported stack normally exceeds the wind load on a self-supporting
cylindrical stack. In consequence, the combined cost of the support structure and relatively lightweight stack will normally
exceed that of a self-supported stack of similar height and top diameter. If, however, the stack is required to support external
vertical pipes and many platforms, this relationship could change and a structure supported stack could become economic.
Where possible, it is desirable to position a stack on top of the heater being served. This eliminates the costs of horizontal
ducting, the lower part of the stack and its foundation. This saving is, however, partially counterbalanced by the additional cost
of steelwork in the furnace structure. If a stack is positioned close to a substantial tall building or structure, consideration
should be given to designing it as a “Stayed" stack. See Figure 1 for examples of stacks.
DATA REQUIRED BY THE DESIGNER

The design of a stack is a complex business, requiring a great deal of skill and experience from the designer. For a given set of
operating conditions, specification is simple and a satisfactory design can usually be found. Unfortunately, constant operating
conditions are rarely found and, in practice, they tend to vary over quite a wide range. In these circumstances, the designer
has to make compromises, balanced between the requirements of the different conditions within the range of operations. In
order to do this, he requires information about the full range of anticipated operating conditions. This information includes:
Environmental Data
• Limitations on the ground level concentrations of sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides and particulates.
• Minimum and maximum permitted stack heights.
• Minimum and maximum permitted flue gas exit velocities.
Note: These considerations may have already been taken into account by ExxonMobil's designers in preparing a Design
Specification which specifies height and top diameter only.
• Existence of aggressive gases from other nearby sources.
• Requirements for testing flue gas condition, such as constituent analysis, particulate content, temperature, velocity, acid
dew point temperature. Responsibilities for provision of this equipment should be defined.
• Requirement for aircraft warning lights.
• Maximum and minimum ambient air temperature.
• Altitude and any special nearby topographic features (Cliffs, hills, etc).
Description of Plant
• Type of heater served (e.g., Boiler, furnace, incinerator, etc).
• Existence of nearby stacks or other tall structures, with details.
• Presence of FGD (Flue Gas Desulfurization) or other pollution control equipment.
• Presence of air preheater or other energy conservation equipment.
• Definitions of anticipated abnormal operations, if any (e.g., overload operation, steam/air decoking, by-pass of air
preheater, turn-down, etc.).
• Presence of water quenching or tube washing equipment.
• Location(s) of flue gas entry point(s) into stack.
Operating Conditions
• Nature of chimney operation, whether continuous, intermittent, or occasional.
• Maximum and minimum mass flows of each flue gas stream entering the stack, during normal and abnormal operations.
• Maximum and minimum temperatures of each flue gas stream entering the stack under normal operating conditions.

XXIX-J 7 of 41
STEEL STACKS
• Maximum and minimum temperatures of each flue gas stream entering the stack, during each anticipated type of abnormal
operation, together with an estimate of the probable duration and frequency.
• Desired drafts at entry of flue gas ducts into stack, during normal and abnormal operations.
• Type of fuel being burned and anticipated composition of the flue gases.
• Anticipated concentrations of deleterious chemicals in the flue gas streams. In particular, the concentrations of SO3, NOx,
HF, HCl, Chlorine, and alkalis.
• If known, the range of maximum acid dew point temperatures of the flue gas streams during the various operating
conditions.
• Concentration of abrasive dust in the flue gases.
• Planned frequency of shut-downs, allowing access for inspection and maintenance.
Possible Future Change of Operating Conditions

An assessment should be made of the possibility that operating conditions may change in the future. If such a change is
considered possible, the specialist designer should be able to provide advice about its impact on the stack's performance. He
may also be able to suggest a minor change to the stack's initial design that would minimize the necessity for future expensive
modifications, required to accommodate the change of operation. Typical changes of operation are:
• Installation of a new (or removal of an existing) FGD or other pollution control system.
• Installation or removal of an air preheater or other energy conservation system.
• Change in operating mode, from continuous to intermittent or vice-versa.
• Change of fuel.
• Turn down or upturn of the unit served.
Unplanned Hazards
The most serious unplanned hazard for a steel stack is an internal fire. The specifier should consider the likelihood that internal
fire could occur and also should assess the effect that a consequent shut-down for repairs would have on plant operation. If
the risk is high and a prolonged stack shut-down would be unacceptable, the designer should be required to provide a chimney
capable of withstanding an internal fire without the requirement for a shut-down for repairs.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
ALONG-WIND LOADS
Down-wind loads are based on ASME STS-1, assuming exposure Category "C" and using the appropriate value for the locality
of the "Design Wind speed." This is the basic wind speed corresponding to a 3-second gust speed at 33 ft. above ground
associated with an annual probability of 0.02 of being equaled or exceeded (50-year mean recurrence interval). This
corresponds directly with the requirements set forth in Par. 3.3 in GP 04-01-03 and ASCE 7 (2002).
The previous version of ASME STS-1 (1992) used "Fastest Mile" (FM) wind speeds (approximating the wind speed, average
over about 30-50 seconds) for the design of stacks. This method is now outdated. The site specific data needed to determine
environmental loads are usually provided in the Job Specifications (GII). Section XXIX-A, Civil Design Data describes the
methodology for determining/obtaining these data. The subsection also lists values for the seismic zone factors and design
wind speeds for a number of ExxonMobil plant sites worldwide and provides procedures that can be used to determine design
values for locations not listed. Section XXIX-A of this DP also describes how to convert between wind speeds averaged over
different durations.
Because all equations, charts and figures within ASME STS-1 are applicable only when using U.S. Customary Units, this
Section of the DPs provides stack design information in U.S. Customary units only.
The design load distribution is given by:
w(Z) = w (Z) + w (Z) Eq. (1)

D

XXIX-J 8 of 41
STEEL STACKS
where:
C q K K D
f z Zt Z
w (Z) = Eq. (2)
12(1 + 6.8 I )
Z
and:
3ZM
w (Z ) = 0 [G (1 + 6.8 I ) − 1] Eq. (3)
D f Z
h3
and: w(Z) = Along wind load, lb/ft

wD(Z) = Along wind fluctuating load, lb/ft
Cf = Force coefficient
Kzt = Topographic factor
Kz = Velocity pressure exposure coefficient evaluated at height z
D = Stack diameter, in
IZ = Intensity of turbulence at height z
Mo = Moment at the base of the stack due to w(Z), lbf-ft
h = Height of stack, ft
The velocity pressure, qz (psf), shall be calculated by:
2
q = 0.00256V I Eq. (4)
z
Where: V = 3-second gust wind speed, mph

I = Importance factor
Notes:
(1) ASCE 7 (Reference 18) calculates the velocity pressure similarly; however, equation (4) is multiplied by KZ and
KZt. In ASME STS-1 these factors are accounted for in equation (2) resulting in equivalent w(Z) results. The
problem arises in the calculation of the shape factor (Cf). ASME STS-1 uses the exact shape factor coefficient
table from ASCE 7. Within this table, shape factor values for round cross-sections are based on the equation
D*(qz)^(1/2). Thus, ASME STS-1 and ASCE 7 will result in varying shape factor results. This appears to be an
error. In order to calculate w(Z) correctly Eq. (4) should be multiplied by Kzt and Kz before choosing shape
factor values from ASCE 7. The Kzt and Kz factors should then be omitted from Eq. (2) to calculate w(z)
properly.
(2) Section 4 of AMSE STS-1 uses the diameter of the stack (D) in inches. Section 5 of ASME STS-1 uses the
diameter of the stack (D) in feet.
The effect of the stack's dynamic response to gusts is taken into account in ASME STS-1, Paragraph 4.3.3.6. This is the same
approach taken from ASCE 7 for a flexible or dynamically sensitive structure (See DP XXIX-D Appendix B for the procedure
and Appendix C for an example).
In establishing the area affected by the wind pressure, allowance should be made for the stack, any support structure, ladders,
platforms, attached pipes, etc., per the procedure in DP XXIX-D. No allowance should be made for shielding. Structural Force
Coefficients are also obtained from DP XXIX-D.

XXIX-J 9 of 41
STEEL STACKS
DYNAMIC RESPONSE TO THE WIND
Cross-Wind Flexural Response

When wind blows past a stack, vortices are shed at regular intervals, alternately from one side and the other. These are called
“Von Karman vortices." As they are shed, they create pulses of differential pressure, causing an alternating force in the
direction normal to the wind. The frequency with which these vortices are shed depends upon the wind speed, stack diameter,
and a parameter known as the “Strouhal Number." When the frequency of vortex shedding is close to a natural frequency of
the stack, resonance effects can magnify the response of the stack and, if its mass and structural damping are low, very large
oscillations can result. At worst these oscillations have led to stack collapses and, at best, the large movements have caused
considerable alarm. In addition to this “Resonant response", which occurs over a fairly narrow range of wind speed, the
response of the stack also increases slowly as the wind speed increases, due to random or “Stochastic" response.
Cross-wind response effects are defined in ASME STS-1, which is based on the CICIND Model Code for Steel Chimneys.
The “Critical wind speed," VC in ft/s (i.e., the wind speed at which resonance occurs between vortex shedding and the stack's
first mode natural frequency) is calculated using the following formula:
n1 D
Vc = Eq. (5)
S
where: n1 = Stack's frequency for mode shape being considered, usually the first mode
(Note that the value of n1 for a stack mounted on a furnace or other structure will be
significantly affected by the support steelwork's stiffness), Hz.
D = Mean external diameter of upper third of stack, ft
S = Strouhal Number (usually used as 0.2 for single stacks and may vary due to Reynolds
Number and multiple stacks)
Across wind loads for plumb or nearly plumb (less than +/-10% diameter variation over the top 1/3) stacks, the mean hourly
speed at 5/6 height above ground, Vzcr (ft/sec), shall be used for evaluating the critical vortex shedding velocity. The value of
Vzcr, in ft/s, shall be calculated as follows:
α
æ Z cr ö æ 22 ö
Vz = bç ÷ ç ÷VR Eq. (6)
cr è 33 ø è 15 ø
where: Zcr = 5/6 of the stack height, ft

VR = Reference wind speed corresponding to a 3-second gust speed at 33 ft above ground in
exposure C, mph
b,α = tabulated below
Notes:
(1) In equation 6 above, the b value converts the 3 second wind speed into a mean hourly wind speed.
(2) In equation 6 above, the α value is used as a height correction factor depending on the terrain exposure
constant
(3) In equation 6 above, the (22/15) coverts the reference wind speed into ft/s

XXIX-J 10 of 41
STEEL STACKS
a. Terrain Exposure Constants
Exposure α b
A 1/3.0 0.30
B 1/4.0 0.45
C 1/6.5 0.65
D 1/9.0 0.80
Notes:
(1) GP 04-01-03 (Design Loads) requires that Exposure Category C shall be used unless the terrain condition of
the site justifies a different exposure category subject to the approval of the Owner.
(2) Exposure Category A has been removed from ASCE 7-02
Vortex shedding loads shall be calculated for all modes of vibration where Vc < Vzcr. The procedure in the Non-mandatory
Appendix E of ASME STS-1 may be used. Fatigue analysis must be considered. The vortex loads need not be combined
with along wind loads.
Vortex shedding loads shall be calculated for all modes of vibration where Vzcr < Vc < 1.2 Vzcr. The procedure in ASME
2
STS-1 Non-mandatory Appendix E may be used. The resulting loads may be reduced by the factor (Vzcr/Vc) . Fatigue
analysis need not be considered.
If Vc > 1.2 Vzcr, then response vortex shedding can be ignored.
Notes:
(1) API 560 (Section 9.5) allows vortex shedding loads to be ignored if the critical wind speed of the stack is
greater than 60 mph or 88 ft/s (mean hourly) . ASME STS-1 does not have such a limit. EMRE recommends
this limit not be used for newly constructed steel stacks. However, the design of existing stacks may have
used this limit. Therefore, when analyzing an existing stack, it may be practical to consider the API 560 60
mph limit. When modifying an existing stack, the API 560 60 mph limit should only be used when
modifications are minor.
(2) It is very common for stacks to be supported on fired heaters. In this case, accurately calculating the natural
frequency (See Eq. 5) of the total structure (heater and stack combination) can be complicated. EMRE
recommends that the natural frequency of the stack be determined as if the stack were supported on grade.
This method will produce fairly accurate results because typically fired heaters are very stiff. If the entire
structure is modeled, the heater's walls must be included when calculating the structures natural frequency.
In either case, EMRE recommends that a range of natural frequencies be evaluted (+/- 5%).
Due to the liberalizing effect of the modern codes, very tall, slender steel stacks have become economically viable. As their
aspect ratio increases, the effects of second mode oscillations are becoming significant. If the critical velocity for the second
mode (Vc = n1 D / S) is less than 1.2 Vzcr , advice should be sought from EMRE (where n1 is the natural frequency for the
second mode).
Damping
The response of a stack varies inversely with its structural damping (See Figure 3). Steel stacks have relatively low inherent
structural damping. Additional damping may be gained from the inclusion of a brick or refractory lining, foundation system, or
aerodynamic methods which disrupt vortex formation, although the last, in fact, reduces the damping (See the Controlling
Flexural Dynamic Response Section). For the wind loads, the structural damping values (βs) shall be as shown in the table
below.

XXIX-J 11 of 41
STEEL STACKS
a. Steel Stack Structural Damping Values
Support Damping Value (βs)

Type Welded Stack Rigid Support Elastic Support
Unlined 0.002 0.004
Lined 0.003 0.006
Notes:
(1) A Rigid Support condition should be used for foundations on bedrock, end-bearing piles or other rigid base
support conditions.
(2) An Elastic Support conditions should be used for foundations with friction piles or mat-foundations on soil or other
elastic base support conditions.
(3) Lining must consist of a minimum 2-in. thick, nominally 100 pcf density liner material for stack to be considered
lined for the use in this table.
It is very common for stacks to be supported on fired heaters. Because a heater is some what flexibility and will absorb energy,
it is EMRE's recommendation that the support be considered elastic for determining damping values (even if the heater is
supported on a rigid foundation). However, because a vortex shedding analysis can be very sensitive to damping values, it is
also recommended that a range of damping values be evaluated (+/- 0.001).
The total damping value used for the dynamic response of stack should be the addition of both the structural (βs) and
aerodynamic damping (βa) values.
β =β +β Eq. (7)
s a
and:
C ρD V
f z
β = Eq. (8)
a 4πm n
a 1
where: Cf = Force Coefficient

3
ρ = Density of Air, 0.078 lb/ft
D = Mean diameter of the top 1/3 of the stack, ft
VZ = Mean hourly wind speed, ft/s
ma = Mass per unit length of the top 1/3 of the stack, lb/ft
n1 = Natural frequency of the stack for the mode being considered (usually first
mode shape), Hz
Aerodynamic Interference
The relationships given in the ALONG-WIND LOADS section and the Cross-Wind Flexural Response section apply only to
isolated stacks having no stack or tower of similar or greater height in the immediate vicinity. If such a stack or tower is within a
distance of about 15d (where “d" is the external diameter of either structure, whichever is the greater), significant increases can
be expected in the response of both, if their mass-damping is near or below the limits given in the Cross-Wind Flexural
Response section.
The effect is very sensitive to the wind direction, being at a maximum when the wind is blowing approximately along the line
tangentially joining the two (see Figure 4).
This increase is due to aerodynamic interference effects of various types, depending upon the spacing and diameter
(References 1, 4, and 5).

XXIX-J 12 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Effect on Wind Load in the Along Wind DirectionWhen interference effects are expected from a nearby structure, CICIND
(Reference 6) recommends that the design wind speed used to determine the wind load should be increased by a factor ki as
defined below:
1. Where the height of the interfering structure is less than half the stack height, ki = 1.0.
2. Where the height of the interfering structure is > half stack height and it is approximately cylindrical in shape, ki is
determined from the following expression for values of A/D between 1 and 30:
A
k = 1.2 − 0.0067 Eq. (9)
i D
Where: A = Distance of stack down-wind from the interfering structure (center to center), ft
D = Diameter of the interfering structure, ft
ASME STS-1 provides less information, but suggests that for grouped or clustered stacks having a center-to-center distance of
3.0 diameters or less, an increase in the force coefficient value of 20% is suggested in the absence of model wind tunnel
testing or existing full scale data.
Effect on Cross-Wind Response

When an approximately cylindrical structure (e.g., another stack or process tower) is upwind and within 15 diameters (center-to-
center) of a stack of similar or smaller height (but greater than 1/2 the upwind stack height), aerodynamic "Wake Interference"
effects can considerably increase the stack's cross-wind response (the diameter concerned being that of the interfering
structure). The associated critical wind speed increases with decreasing values of A/D due to a reduction in the value of the
Strouhal Number. Figure 5 shows the relationship between Strouhal Number and A/D. The equation below (ASME STS-1)
estimates the reduction of the Strouhal Number for closely spaced stacks:
1 æ A − 3ö
S = 0.16 + ç
300 è D
÷ for A/D ≤ 15 Eq. (10)
ø
S = 0.20 for A/D > 15 Eq. (11)
where:
A = Horizontal center-to-center distance between two stacks, ft
D = Diameter of the stack in consideration, ft
This increase may result in decreasing the critical velocity beyond the design consideration value of 1.2 Vzcr for wind directions
near the line of the stacks. If oscillation induced stresses exceed allowable stresses, the stack's structural damping should be
increased (e.g., by the use of a tuned mass damper) to reduce across wind response. Note that aerodynamic stabilizers (e.g.,
helical spoilers) are ineffective in controlling response in cases of wake interference.
When the interfering tower or stack is less than 2 diameters away, "Interference Galloping" can cause even greater increases in
the stack's response, due to the vortices shed by the upstream stack or tower impacting different parts of the downwind stack
as it moves in response to shedding its own vortices. In this case, the CICIND Model Code recommends either to fit tuned
mass dampers, or connect structurally, the stack to the interfering structure, using an energy absorbing connection system
(See Figure 18).
When a new stack is built near an existing stack, the interferecne effect of the new stack on the existing stack should also be
investigated when the wind direction is reversed.
Ovalling Effects
In addition to causing flexural response of a stack, vortex shedding can also set up vibrations in the horizontal plane (Ovalling,
first about one axis and then about an axis normal to the first - see Figure 6). A stack lined with 3 in. cast refractory will

XXIX-J 13 of 41
STEEL STACKS
normally have sufficient structural damping and a high natural frequency to prevent excessive motion. For unlined steel
stacks, the ovaling natural frequency (Hz) is calculated as follows:
680t
f = Eq. (12)
o
D2
and the critical wind velocity for ovalling (ft/s) is:
f D
v = o Eq. (13)
co 2S
where: t = Average steel thickness over upper third of stack, in D = Stack diameter, ft
S = Strouhal Number
If the Vco is less than the mean hourly wind speed, the unlined stack should be reinforced with ring stiffeners meeting the
requirements of Section 5.2.2 of ASME STS-1.
Fatigue
ASME STS-1 requires that a fatigue analysis must be considered if Vc < Vzcr. For normally proportioned steel stacks over the
height range considered in this Design Practice that will not experience large tip amplitude motion due to vortex shedding,
fatigue loads need not be considered. For stacks which experience large tip motion, fatigue loads shall be analyzed. The
procedure for a fatigue analysis is provided in Appendix E of ASME STS-1. ASME STS-1 also allows the fatigue loads to be
analyzed using the method in CICIND, Model Code for Steel Chimneys (Reference 3). Either method is complicated and if
fatigue loads must be considered advice should be sought from EMRE.
EARTHQUAKE LOADS
While ASME STS-1 provides guidance on the derivation of earthquake loads, generally wind loads will govern for all but the
most severe earthquakes (exceeding Mercalli Scale 10). If a heavy mass (a water tank or similar) is fitted near the top of the
stack, earthquake loading could become more critical than wind, but such a configuration is rare in refineries and chemical
plants DP XXIX-D provides procedures for calculating seismic loads.
INTERNAL PRESSURE CHANGES

When a damper is suddenly closed, a transient wave of suction may be induced in the stack. Its maximum value (P), in psf, is
given by:
αcv
P= Eq. (14)
32.2
where: α = Gas density,lb/ft3

c = Sonic velocity in the flue gas,ft/s
v = Velocity of flue gas prior to damper closure,ft/s
These suctions will rarely be a problem in stacks having the thickness / diameter ratios common in refinery or chemical plants.
Due to the strength and ductility of the shell, a steel stack is well able to cope with overpressures caused for instance by an
internal explosion.
THERMAL EFFECTS
When a stack is restrained from adopting a deformed shape in response to differential expansion, bending stresses will be
introduced into the shell. These deformations can be large when a single unlined stack carries flue gases from two or more
sources at significantly different temperatures or if a single side entry introduces gases at high temperatures. In addition, the
resulting differential metal temperatures will introduce secondary thermal stresses. Typical cases of such restraint are to be

XXIX-J 14 of 41
STEEL STACKS
found in stayed stacks. Guidance on the derivation of these loads and stresses may be obtained from CICIND Model Code
for Concrete Chimneys, Part C - Steel Liners (Reference 6).
In addition to the high stresses caused by restraint of thermal expansion, stacks can be damaged by high temperatures. High
temperatures would rarely be a problem in a stack equipped with a refractory lining. Also, provided no external insulation or
nearby reflective surface is present, the metal temperature of a bare steel stack will be significantly less than that of the flue
gas, due to surface film and radiation effects. Depending on the velocity of the flue gases and the ambient conditions, the
temperature of the metal can be as little as 50% of the flue gas temperature in this case. Indeed, tests have shown that a bare
steel stack can resist the effects of an internal fire, provided the wind load is not excessive or that its loss of stiffness does not
reduce its critical wind velocity to that of the wind blowing at the time (nevertheless, if a risk exists of internal fire, a refractory
liner should be provided).
o
For stacks to be subjected to high-temperatures (> 500 F) and/or fast plant startup or shutdown such as cyclic operation of
combustion turbine, design consideration should be given to minimize the non-uniform thermal differentials that may exist
between shell and stiffeners or other structural elements. Localized thermal stresses induced in the inner plates and stiffeners
can be substantial and must be considered in the design.
CHEMICAL EFFECTS AND ACID CORROSION

The most common form of internal chemical attack in a refinery or chemical plant stack is due to acids formed by condensation
of sulphur oxides in the flue gas. During the combustion process nearly all of the sulphur in the fuel is converted to sulphur
dioxide (SO2), which is absorbed by condensing water vapor to form sulphurous acid.
A small quantity of the SO2 is further converted to sulphur trioxide (SO3). The quantity converted depends in a complex
manner upon the sulphur content of the fuel, the amount of excess air available during combustion, the flame temperature, the
residence time in the combustion chamber and the presence of catalysts, such as iron oxides. Depending on exact conditions,
1 to 2% of the SO2 is converted to SO3. The resulting small concentration of SO3 (usually measured in ppm) gives rise to most
o
of the acid corrosion problems encountered in stacks. This is because, at temperatures below 392 F, all of the SO3 ions
combine with water to form sulfuric acid whose concentration can be as high as 85%.
Condensation of these acids takes place when the temperature of the flue gas falls below their “Acid dewpoint" (ADP), or when
the flue gas comes in contact with a surface, at or below the relevant ADP temperature. The acid dewpoint temperature of
sulfuric acid depends upon the concentration of SO3 (Figure 8). Provided the flue gas and surfaces with which it comes into
contact are maintained at temperatures at least 68°F (20°C) above ADP, there will be no danger of acid corrosion.
ExxonMobil's traditional approach, however, has been to take the simpler and safer course of defining the limiting temperature
as 350°F (175°C), for most sulphur-bearing situations [defined as fuels containing more than 0.5% sulphur by mass, or flue gas
containing more than 17 grains / 100 scf (400 mg / m3)]. Providing the risk is low of internal fire or other high temperature
excursion, external insulation should be applied in marginal cases where the metal temperature would otherwise be close to
ADP.
The acid dewpoint of sulfurous acid is about 150°F (65°C), a little above that of water. Also, the ADP of SO3 can be in this
range at the very low concentrations to be expected after scrubbing. Initially the sulphuric acid condensing at these
temperatures is very weak, but it is quickly concentrated while in liquid phase (Figure 8). Thus, even if the flue gases are
scrubbed to remove most of the sulphur oxides, severe corrosion can still be expected if the temperatures of the flue gas or
surfaces it contacts are allowed to fall below 150°F (65°C), or the ADP relevant to the reduced SO3 content. Also, below the
water dewpoint, corrosion can be very severe due to the absorption of CO2 and SO2, and the resulting formation of a strongly
corrosive environment.
The effects of acid corrosion are increased significantly, if chlorides are present in the flue gas (e.g., in a sulphur stack,
downstream of a Stretford tail gas cleanup system).
While the process is not fully understood, a medium weight refractory lining has been found to give lasting protection against
acid corrosion to relatively cool steel, provided the face of the refractory in contact with the flue gas is above ADP temperature.
It should be remembered that metal items attached to the shell, such as ladders, platforms, helical spoilers, guy rope
attachments, etc. act as fin coolers. There exists, therefore, a potential for localized acid corrosion due to their cooling of the
shell at their attachment points. Such situations should be critically examined and, if necessary, thermal isolation washers
should be incorporated in their fixings to the shell.
Normal stainless steels have little better acid corrosion resistance than carbon steel, in the range of concentrations and
temperatures normally found in stacks. To achieve good resistance to acid corrosion in these conditions, more exotic alloys
are required, such as Hastalloy. External to the stack, within 3 diameters of its top, however, temperatures and concentrations
are sufficiently low for Type 316 steel to perform well, whereas carbon steel would be at risk.

XXIX-J 15 of 41
STEEL STACKS
DESIGN CRITERIA
SAFETY FACTORS
In ASME STS-1 Steel Stacks, safety factors vary with the load combinations considered between 1.33 and 1.5 for final
conditions (1.33 during construction) and are applied to define allowable shell compression stresses only. Other allowable
stresses (e.g., in bolted connections) are defined in the AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 9th Edition, in which no safety
factors are quoted.
DYNAMIC STABILITY
The dynamic stability of a stack is discussed in detail in the previous Section, Dynamic Response to the Wind
Second mode vibration (Ovalling) should ensure that vco < Vz. Ovalling need not be considered if the stack is insulated (Where
Vz is the mean hourly wind speed (ft/s) and vco is per Eq. 13).
TEMPERATURE LIMITS
The maximum temperatures of carbon steel and austenitic stainless steels shall not exceed 850°F (454°C) and 1200°F (650°C)
respectively. Their strengths and Youngs Modulii are reduced at much lower temperatures, however, rarely would the steel be
designed for temperatures greater than 570°F (300°C) and 750°F (400°C), respectively.
If thermal calculations indicate that the shell temperature will be excessive under any operating condition, or if a significant risk
of internal fire exists, a medium weight refractory lining, per GP 19-3-3, should be applied. In the case of high operating
temperature, its thickness may be derived by thermal calculations. The minimum thickness should, however, be 3 in. .
CORROSION ALLOWANCES
GP 04-05-01 specifies corrosion allowances, depending only on the stack metal temperature and steel type. They vary
between 1/8 in. and 1/16 in. , i.e., the assumption is made that the metal is not subject to acid corrosion at any time, except
during infrequent shut-down, when low gas temperatures are unavoidable. This differs from the approach of the ASME STS-1
and CICIND Codes, which permit limited acid corrosion, while the CICIND Code defines larger corrosion allowances.
Where the minimum thickness provisions of GP 04-05-01 apply, the corrosion allowance is included, i.e., the minimum
thickness applies to the new, uncorroded stack.
DEFLECTIONS
The maximum deflection under the static design loading shall be calculated, and the foundation rotation or movement shall be
considered in evaluating deflection. There is no practical limit placed on the maximum deflection a stack can experience;
however, for large deflections, the resulting secondary stresses cause by P∆ should be considered. The calculated maximum
deflection shall also be considered in evaluating the suitability of equipment anchored to the stack.
DESIGN
DESIGN STRESSES
Longitudinal Flexural Strength

The light weight and high tensile strength of steel stacks ensures that the critical shell stresses in a self-supported cantilever
stack will be compressive, due to flexure of the stack. For most stacks, the ratio of diameter to thickness is small enough to
ensure that plane sections remain plane, until buckling occurs, i.e., the shell can be regarded as a beam, in deriving the
maximum longitudinal compressive stress. The thickness to diameter should be less than 10 Fy/E where Fy = yield strength at
mean shell temperature (psi) and E = modulus of elasticity at mean shell temperature. (Note: GP 04-05-01 Par. 3.5 specifies
a stress intensification factor (1.5) be applied to this stress, 12 in. each side of a junction of a cylindrical with a conical section.)
The longitudinal compressive stress in cylindrical stacks and liners (P/A) shall not exceed the allowable limit (Scl) as follows:

XXIX-J 16 of 41
STEEL STACKS
E t Y
When t/D ≤ 2.8Fy/E: S = Eq. (15)
cl 4 D (F.S.)
(
F 1 − 0.3 K Y
y s
)
When 2.8Fy/E < t/D ≤ 10Fy / E: S = Eq. (16)
cl (F.S.)
where: E = Young’s Modulus at design metal temperature, ksi

t = Thickness (net of corrosion allowance), in
D = Diameter at elevation considered, in
F.S. = Safety factor (defined by ASME STS-1, Table 4.1)
Fy = Yield strength at design metal temperature, ksi
Le = Two times the overall stack height for cantilever stacks.
r = Weighted mean radius of gyration for elevation under consideration, in
Notes:
(1) ASME STS-1 no longer allows the refractory stiffness to be taken into account when
calculating the allowable compressive stress.
(2) ASME STS-1 requires that the maximum allowable compressive stress be calculated
using the full uncorroded weight of the stack with the stack corroded thickness.
and:
Y=1 when Le / r ≤ 60 and Fy ≤ 50 ksi
21,600
Y= when Le / r > 60 and Fy > 50 ksi Eq. (17)
2
æL ö
18,000 + ç ÷
e
ç r ÷
è ø
Note: For guyed stacks, which are subject to combined bending and compression, Y should be
calculated using the interaction formula in the AISC Code (Reference 8).
10 F
y t
−
E D
Ks = Interpolation Factor = Eq. (18)
7.2 F
y
E
The combined longitudinal compressive and bending stress in cylindrical stacks and liners shall not exceed the allowable
stress, Sbl.
P MD
+ ≤S Eq (19)
A 2I bl
sec tion
where:

XXIX-J 17 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Sbl = Scl in Eq. (16) above, psi

P = Dead load of stack above area under consideration, lb
M = Moment in stack at elevation under consideration due to wind or
earthquake loads, lb-in
D = Diameter of stack at elevation under consideration, in
2
A = Cross-sectional area of stack at elevation under consideration, in
4
Isection = Moment of inertia of stack section, in
Y = 1
The German code governing steel stacks (DIN 4133, Reference 9) states that, for stacks with small aspect ratios [height /
diameter < (5 + 0.035 D / t), typically about 14], longitudinal stresses should be calculated using thin shell theories, rather than
beam theory. The only refinery and chemical plants that have aspect ratios below this limit will be short, relatively lightly
stressed and subject to the minimum plate thickness requirements. Therefore, until further research is completed, our stacks
should continue to utilize beam theory.
Circumferential Stresses
ASME STS-1, Par. 4.4.3, specifies allowable circumferential stresses, due to external wind pressure in the shell due to
external pressure between stiffeners. This uneven wind pressure gives rise to a maximum moment / unit length of shell, given
by ASME STS-1 Equation 4.11. It is rarely necessary to check this effect in refinery or chemical plant stacks, due to their
relatively low ratios of diameter / thickness.
2
Note: Equation 4.11 of ASME STS-1 is incorrect. It should read: f = (qz )(D)/(288t)
Computer Software
A computer program (StackDes) (Reference 7) is kept on file at EMRE, which can be used to carry out an independent check
of a contractor's design. This program is capable of checking along and across wind and fatigue stresses using either the
ASME STS-1 2000 or CICND 1999 codes.
CONTROLLING FLEXURAL DYNAMIC RESPONSE
ASME STS-1 2000 requires vibration control measures if vortex shedding loads, calculated using STS-1 2000 Appendix E,
exceed allowable stress limits.
Aerodynamic Spoilers
Aerodynamic spoilers, in the form of helical strakes, provide an efficient means of reducing the amplitude of cross-wind
oscillations of an isolated stack to negligible values. Strakes of this sort are ineffective in reducing oscillations due to
aerodynamic interference effects. It is important that the strakes extend over the top 33% of the stack height, are formed of
continuous sections and follow the design shown in Figure 9.
Aerodynamic spoilers act as fin coolers. In order to avoid creating cold spots on the inner surface of an unlined stack, with the
associated risk of localized acid corrosion, their attachment to the shell should include thermal isolation (Figure 9).
Whereas aerodynamic spoilers are themselves inexpensive, they do impose a hidden cost, due to their high wind drag.
Whereas the force coefficient (Cf) for most refinery or chemical plant stacks will lie between 0.6 and 0.7, depending on their
aspect ratios, the value for a stack equipped with aerodynamic spoilers is 1.4 (used in conjunction with the outside diameter of
the stack, i.e. the extra area added by the strack is ignored in ASME STS-1). Doubling of the wind load at the top of the stack
can significantly increase the cost of the stack and its foundation. Also, retrofitting strakes to solve oscillation problems is not
normally possible, due to this increase in wind load.
Tuned-Mass Dampers
These take the form of a pendulum, mounted near the top of the stack, and weighing normally no more than 5% of the stack
weight. The pendulum takes the form of a short cylinder, suspended outside the top of the stack by 3 vertical suspenders. By
adjusting the suspender length, it is tuned to have a natural frequency similar to that of the stack's fundamental frequency.
Means are added to absorb energy as the pendulum moves relative to the stack. Various systems are available. Some absorb
the energy by hydraulic means - either using hydraulic pistons (Figure 10) or suspending the pendulum in an oil bath (Figure

XXIX-J 18 of 41
STEEL STACKS
11). Both of these systems require regular maintenance, which can be difficult at the top of a stack, on-line. One system
which appears to require no maintenance, beyond that normally required at the stack top, is the “KABE" damper, which relies
on coils of wire rope to absorb the energy (Figure 12). KABE dampers are marketed by KABE GmbH, Oberursel, Germany
(Tel. +49 6171-7701), Abricot Ltd., Brunswick Industrial Estate, Wideopen, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE13 7BA, U.K. (Tel: +44
191 217 0171, Fax: 0181), and Warren Engineering Inc, Atlanta, GA, USA (Tel: +1 404-843-8333).
Another type of tuned-mass damper has been developed by Mitsubishi, to be positioned on a platform, near the top of the
stack (Figure 13). This is described in Reference 10.
Tuned mass dampers are relatively expensive, with cost varying from $5,000 to $20,000 (USD), depending on stack size.
There is, however, no associated hidden cost in the stack or its foundation, as they have little or no effect on the wind loads and
cause only a very minor increase in dead load (usually beneficial to stack foundations). A major advantage of tuned mass
dampers is that they provide a solution to oscillations caused by interference effects. Also, they can be retrofitted to
troublesome stacks without causing structural problems.
A recently developed tuned-mass damper (Figure 14) appears to be both relatively inexpensive and maintenance-free. In this
case, rather than being a suspended pendulum, the tuned mass is supported by 3 ball bearings, each sitting in a small saucer-
shaped support. The damper's frequency is determined by the curvature of the saucers and energy is absorbed by friction as
the balls roll over their surfaces. The damper was developed by Flow Engineering BV. PO Box 3020, 2280 GA Rijswijk,
Netherlands (Tel: +31 70 393 3470; Fax: +31 70 393 1004).
Impact Dampers
Impact dampers, taking the form of short lengths of rubber coated chain (Figure 15), were developed by NASA to stabilize
rockets waiting on launch pads. Further development, including design criteria, is described in Reference 11.
Another form of impact damping is provided by steel liner(s), inside the structural shell, having a continuous annular gap
between liner(s) and shell. This is a popular type of design (Figure 16) for chimneys serving one or more boilers (relatively low
flue gas temperature, with low risk of high temperature excursions), as the annular gap provides the insulation necessary to
maintain the metal in contact with flue gases above ADP. The relationship between gap and damping is provided in
References 12 and 15.
A recently developed impact damper utilizes the "Sloshing" effect of a liquid against radial fins immersed in an annular
container around the stack, near the top. This is described in Reference 16. While this solution appears relatively inexpensive
and effective, care must be taken to ensure against leakage, freezing or polymerisation of the liquid.
Active Dampers
These “Intelligent" dampers provide “Feed-back" forces, decided by computer, to cancel out the forces causing motion
(Reference 13) (Figure 18). Note: While this system has been used on multi-story buildings in seismic zones, it is not known
whether it has yet been installed on a steel stack.
Guy Ropes
Because they absorb energy as their catenary is raised when stack movement increases their tension, guy ropes with a
pretension of about 1.1 short tons (1 metric ton) provide an economic and efficient means of eliminating cross-wind oscillations.
An obvious disadvantage, however, is the obstruction posed by the guy ropes, to access around the stack. In the limited space
available in a refinery or chemical plant, this will usually make guy ropes impractical. They provide a useful emergency
solution, however.
Tying Closely Spaced Stacks

When the critical wind speed (Vc) of a stack is less than (1.2)x(Vzcr) and is within 5 diameters of another stack, excessive
oscillations due to interference effects can be eliminated by tying the stacks together at about 3/4 height by a horizontal tie.
This tie should take the form of a wire rope, arranged in a “Figure eight" (Figure 18), clamped to each stack so as to generate
friction as the rope moves relative to the stack.
STIFFENER DESIGN
Ring stiffeners are required when the ratio of diameter / thickness is very large. In these circumstances, ovalling oscillations
may occur at a critical wind speed (Vco) less than the mean hourly wind speed (Vc) (see Ovalling Effects) and / or the shell
may be overstressed by the horizontal moment, induced by the uneven distribution of wind pressure around the circumference
(seeCircumferential Stresses). Generally speaking, for the stack dimensions normally seen in refinery and chemical plants, it
is more economic to use thicker plate than provide stiffeners.

XXIX-J 19 of 41
STEEL STACKS
If required, such stiffeners should be spaced according to Table 4.2 of ASME STS-1 2000. Their section modulus is defined in
ASME STS-1 2000, Par. 5.2.2 in terms of critical wind velocity (ovalling), stack diameter, stiffener spacing and allowable tensile
stress. This relationship only applies when Customary units are used.
DESIGN OF BOLTED CONNECTIONS

While occasionally a contractor will opt for welded butt joints (covered by GP 04-05-01, Par. 3.6), in most cases bolted flanges
will be used to connect prefabricated stack sections together after delivery.
Providing that Vzcr < Vc, or measures have been used to eliminate cross-wind oscillations, it is not necessary to consider fatigue
stresses in the bolted connections and the design specified in GP 04-05-01, Par. 3.1 should be used. This design takes
account of the “prising" effect of the offset position of the bolts, relative to the shell, in addition to the direct transfer of tensile
loads on the windward side of the stack.
Care should be taken to ensure that seal welding is applied to the external edges. If welds are applied to the internal face, the
shell tensile stresses will be transmitted directly through the weld, rather than through the more flexible flange / bolt system.
The resulting tensile stress would probably crack a nominal seal weld.
While bolts in a stack designed according to GP 04-05-01 should not be subject to alternating loads capable of causing fatigue
failure, there is always a risk that a bolt may fail in service. So that this can be readily detected, it is important that bolts be
installed “Upside-down," i.e., with the nuts uppermost. This will ensure that a bolt will fall to the ground, if it fails.
BASE AND FOUNDATION DESIGN

Anchor bolts should be normally be sized, using the following conservative formula, together with allowable stresses as
specified in GP 04-06-01, Par. 3.8:
4 Mb P
T= − Eq. (20)
N D bc N
where: T = Maximum bolt tension force

Mb = Overturning moment at base of stack
P = Total Deadweight of stack
N = Number of bolts
Dbc = Pitch circle diameter of bolts
Note: No load increase in bolts will be permitted for wind or seismic loading.
If circumstances demand more accuracy in assessing maximum bolt tension, reinforced concrete theory may be used. A
suitable equation is provided by ACI 307-98, Par. 5.5 (Reference 14). In this case, however, great care should be taken to
ensure that the gap between base of stack and top of foundation is completely filled with strong grout.
The base of the chimney should be reinforced to accommodate the stresses induced by direct tension on the windward side,
plus the bending induced by the offset of the bolts from the shell. A typical scheme is shown in Figure 20.
If it is shallow and ground bearing, the foundation should satisfy the stability and ground bearing pressure requirements
of GP 04-06-01. If it is pile-supported, the pile group should be designed for the following cases:
1. Wind plus dead load. Pile vertical and horizontal loads should not be greater than their relevant rated capacities
(Allowable Stress Design).
2. 1.5 x Wind load plus 1.0 x dead load. Pile vertical and horizontal loads should not be greater than their ultimate capacities
(Strength Design).
Note: In considering pile tensile forces, the buoyancy effect of groundwater at its maximum level should also be
considered. The Global Practices require that the ground water level be taken at grade.
Also, for both piled and bearing type foundations, ASME STS-1 requires that the combined dead load of the stack plus the
foundation weight, times the distance from the center of the weight to the toe shall be at least 1.5 times the design moments
(i.e. factor of safety from overturning is 1.5).

XXIX-J 20 of 41
STEEL STACKS
OPENINGS
The maximum permitted clear width of an opening shall not exceed 2/3 of stack diameter. Reinforcement must fully restore the
structural capacity of the shell. ASME STS-1 1992, Par. 4.8 provides more detailed guidance. This section has not been
provided in ASME STS-1 2000.
GUY ROPE DESIGN

Guy ropes should be provided in at least 3 vertical planes, the angle between any two planes not exceeding 130. Guy ropes
should not slope more than 60 to the horizontal. Their attachments to the stack should be at least 10 ft (3 m) below the top to
avoid corrosive effects of flue gases.
Guy ropes should be of galvanized steel wire, with steel cores, complying with ISO / R346. The wires should have a minimum
tensile strength of 210 ksi (1450 MPa). A completed rope should be evenly laid and free from loose wires, disturbed strands or
other irregularities and should remain in this condition when properly unwound from the reel or coil. Fittings should be of
galvanized steel. Prior to erection, completed guy ropes should be greased and subjected to a tensile force of 20% minimum
breaking strength for a period of 30 minutes.
Guy ropes and fittings should be designed so that their minimum breaking load is 3 x maximum calculated load, due to the sum
of pretension, design wind and chimney expansion.
After erection, the guy ropes should be pretensioned so as to minimize the top deflection of the stack. The pretension should
be between 15% and 30% of the calculated maximum tension due to design wind, under hot conditions.
It must be remembered that a stack can be subject to considerable expansion as it is heated by flue gases, especially if it is
externally insulated. For instance the vertical expansion would be 11 in. at guy attachment points 260 ft above its base, of an
externally insulated stack, handling flue gases at 480°F (250°C). Thus, if the guy ropes are correctly tensioned when the stack
is cold, the tension in each would increase by about 16.5 short tons when it is hot. The resulting additional compressive stress
in the stack could lead to buckling failure. It is, therefore important, when hot stacks are guyed, that provision be made for
adjustment of guy rope tension (e.g., by using turnbuckles). In this way, the correct tension can be established under both cold
and hot conditions.
The critical wind conditions to be considered in the design are shown in Figure 21. In determining the support provided by the
windward guy ropes, the relative stiffnesses of the stack (acting as a cantilever) and the guy ropes should be taken into
account. Modern computer programs (e.g., STAAD3) have routines for analyzing guyed structures, which do this
automatically. If calculations are made by hand, however, guy rope tensions should first be calculated, assuming the stack is
pinned at its base. Horizontal deflections at the guy rope attachment points should then be determined. The stack shell should
then be analyzed as a cantilever, propped by springs at the guy attachment points, the stiffness of these springs being
determined by the deflections and horizontal components of the rope tensions previously calculated. Second order effects
should be included.
The weight of anchorages should be provided such that:
1.4 Mw + 1.35 Mm – 0.9 Me < 0.9 Ma Eq. (21)
where: Mw = Overturning moment due to design wind and other imposed loads
Mm = Overturning moment due to secondary effects, such as eccentric loading due to stack
deflection
Me = Overturning moments produced by permanent loads which act at all times to reduce the
combined overturning moment
Ma = Restoring moment produced by the foundation (including guy rope anchorages) without
exceeding allowable material stresses or foundation allowable bearing pressure
STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AND STAYED STACKS

The stack's shell in structure supported or stayed stacks, is supported laterally at one or two or more positions along its height.
The distance between supports will be determined by buckling considerations, but their number should be kept to the minimum
possible. The prime concern in the design of these stacks is to ensure that their vertical expansion is not restricted.
Experience has shown that tangential restraints give fewer problems than radial restraints (Figure 22).
In designing the shell and lateral supports, the moment induced by the restraint of differential temperature should be
considered, as described in Reference 6. Differential expansion is caused by the entry of two gas streams with different
temperatures, or by the introduction through a side entrance, of a single, hot gas stream.

XXIX-J 21 of 41
STEEL STACKS
FLUE GAS FLOW CONTROL DEVICES
Turning Vanes
If draft is restricted and stack head losses must be minimized, turning vanes may be installed at the junction of the entry duct
and the stack (Figure 23).
Top Restrictors
A minimum flue gas exit velocity of 13 ft/sec is required to avoid “Downwash" of flue gas down the outside of the stack or
“Inversion" - mixing of cold ambient air with flue gas in the top part of the stack. If the stack diameter is such that the flue gas
velocity is below this value, the exit velocity can be increased by adding a top restrictor. Ideally, this should take the form of a
cone, with sides about 30° to the vertical. If draft is not critical, however, the restrictor can take the form of a flat annular plate.
In the design of either type of top restrictor (or, indeed, any attachment to the stack at high level), special attention should be
paid to the long-term integrity of its fixings. For instance, any welded or bolted detail should be critically examined to check its
constructibility (are proposed welded surfaces likely to fit ?), its exposure to corrosive flue gas and the potential effect of fatigue,
due to wind “Flutter."
Quench Louvers
If the flue gas temperature is too high for carbon steel to be used, a solution may lie in inducing cool air into the flue gas
stream, via an adjustable louvered opening in the side of the entry duct. The mass flow will increase, so that the stack diameter
may require an increase, but this would probably be more economic than using stainless steel. This is a particularly attractive
solution, when a stack serves two units with flue gases having very different temperatures and which may be individually shut-
down. In these circumstances, achieving a compromise design that satisfies all operating conditions can be very difficult.
INTERNAL LININGS
In refineries and chemical plants, internal linings are invariably of medium weight refractory, cast or gunned. They are
anchored to the shell by carbon steel “Y" anchors at 10 in. (250 mm) centers, per GP 19-03-03. They perform the following
functions:
1. The lining provides insulation, minimizing heat loss from the flue gas as it travels up the stack. This is important, when flue
gas temperature would otherwise fall below ADP, leading to smutting and acid corrosion.
2. The lining provides fire resistance, protecting the stack against failure in the event of an internal fire. Such a fire could be
due to ignition of soot, unburned hydrocarbon, carried over from a furnace tube rupture, or sulphur deposits, downstream
of a sulphur incinerator.
3. While the mechanism is not fully understood, such a lining provides protection against acid corrosion of underlying steel,
whose temperature is below ADP. It is necessary, however, that the refractory's inner face in contact with the flue gas,
should be at a temperature above ADP.
4. The added mass and increase in structural damping (Table 5.1 of ASME STS-1) provided by such a liner will usually
increase the stack's mass damping sufficiently to eliminate cross-wind oscillation problems, without recourse to other
methods.
Notes:
(1) Damping values should only be increased if the lining is at least 2 in. thick, and has a density greater than 100 pcf.
(2) ASME STS-1 no longer allows the refractory stiffness to be taken into account when calculating the allowable
stresses.
EXTERNAL INSULATION
Due to the risk of internal fire, external insulation is not usually added to stacks serving process furnaces or sulphur
incinerators. It is normally provided for boiler stacks, however, where the risk of internal fire is low and flue gas temperatures
are usually fairly low.
When the flue gas temperature is high enough, that in still air, the metal is above ADP (e.g., when low sulphur fuel is used),
there remains a danger that the metal could be cooled below ADP by winds in winter. In these circumstances, the simplest and
most economic form of insulation takes the form of aluminum cladding, with a 1 in. annular airspace between stack and
cladding.
When the flue gas temperature is such that the uninsulated metal would be well below ADP, rather more efficient mineral wool
insulation should be used. This also would require aluminum weather protection. Steel underneath insulation and operating in

XXIX-J 22 of 41
STEEL STACKS
o o
the temperature range between 25 F and 300 F is subject to corrosion under insulation (CUI), and appropriate coating should
be specified per GP 19-01-01 to mitigate the corrosion. Insulation jacketing must be designed properly to prevent the ingress
of moisture that will cuase CUI. The Maintenance Practices Manual, TMEE-062, contains guidance on isulation design for
the prevention of CUI.
In both cases, great care is required in designing the fixings for the aluminum cladding, as detached cladding falling from a
stack would pose a dangerous hazard. In the design of these fixings, attention should be paid to the suction at the side
surfaces of the stack in high winds.
It should be remembered that metal items attached to the shell and extending outside the insulation, such as ladders,
platforms, helical spoilers, guy rope attachments, etc. provide fin coolers. There exists, therefore, a potential for localized acid
corrosion due to their cooling of the shell at their attachment points. Such situations should be critically examined and, if
necessary, thermal isolation washers should be incorporated in their fixings to the shell.

XXIX-J 23 of 41
STEEL STACKS
NOMENCLATURE
A = Distance of stack down-wind from the interfering structure, ft
Cf = Force coefficient
c = Sonic velocity in the flue gas, ft/s
D = Diameter of stack, ft or in
D = Mean external diameter of upper third of the stack
D' = Depth of protruding elements such as vessel appurenances, ribs, or spoilers, ft
Dbc = Pitch circle diameter of bolts, ft
d = Diameter or least horizontal dimension, ft
dm = Mean external diameter (upper third of stack), ft
E = Young's Modulus at design metal temperature, ksi
Fp = Limit of proportionality = 0.7 Fy
Fy = Yield strength at design metal temperature, ksi
Fy = Yield strength at mean shell temperature, psi
Gf = Gust effect factor
fo = Stack's first mode natural frequency, Hz
H,h = Total height of stack, ft
I = Moment of inertia of section, ft4
I = Importance factor
IZ = Intensity of turbulence at height z
Kz = Velocity pressure exposure coefficient evaluated at height z
Kzt = Topographic factor
Ki = Design wind speed increase factor for interference effects
kc = Response amplitude increase factor for wake interference effects
Le = Effective height (length) of the stack, ft
Ma = Restoring moment produced by foundation, kip-in.
Mb, Mo = Overturning moment at base of stack, kip-in.
Me = Overturning moments produced by permanent loads acting at all times to reduce moments, kip-in.
Mm = Overturning moments due to secondary effects, kip-in.
Mw = Overturning moment due to design wind and other imposed loads, kip-in.
m = Average mass per unit length of top one-third of stack, lb-mass/ft
ma = Mass per unit length of the top 1/3 of the stack, lb/ft
N = Number of anchor bolts
n = Modular ratio
n1 = Stack's natural frequency for the mode being considered, Hz
P = Pressure of transient wave of suction when a damper is suddenly closed, psf
P = Total dead weight of the stack, kips
r = Weighted mean radius of gyration for elevation under consideration, in
qz = Velocity pressure, psf
S = Strouhal Number (0.2 for the first mode vibration of an isolated circular stack)
SCL = Allowable compressive stress, ksi
T = Maximum bolt tension force, kip
teff = Effective shell thickness, in.
t = Stack wall thickness, in.
ts = Plate thickness, net of corrosion allowance, in.
V = 50-year return wind speed, average over 3 seconds, ft/s
VC = Critical wind speed, ft/s

XXIX-J 24 of 41
STEEL STACKS
V = Mean hourly wind speed, ft/s

VFM = Fastest mile wind speed, mph
Vzcr = Critical mean hourly wind speed, ft/s
v = Velocity of the flue gas prior to closure of the damper, ft/s
wb = Total dead weight of stack, kip
w(Z) = Along wind load, lb/ft
wD(Z) = Along wind fluctuating load, lb/ft
Y = Coefficient used to calculate longitudinal compressive stress
Zcr = The height at which the critical wind speed is being evaluated, ft
α = Gas density, lb/ft3
β = Total damping
βa = Aerodynamic damping
βs = Structural damping per ASME STS-1, Table 5.1
ε = Ratio of solid area to gross area
ƒo = Ovaling natural frequency, Hz
ρ = Density of air, lb/ft3
∅ = Solidity ratio, total solid area on a face / gross area (h x d)

XXIX-J 25 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 1 Available Stack Designs
a No. 4
c No. 3
Top Cone
Cross-section
e No. 2
Helical
Aerodynamic
f
Stabilizers
g No. 1 Support point
Intermediate Cone
TOWER SUPPORTED
B.L. ± 0
Jointing Flange
Structural Shell
Inlets
Access Door Base Stool
Holding Down Bolts
SELF SUPPORTING
DP29Jf01
GUYED

XXIX-J 26 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 2 Wind Pressure On A Cylinder
-2.1 q
DP29Jf02
-2.1 q

XXIX-J 27 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 3 Relationship Between Scruton Number and Top Amplitude
0.6
w
d
0.5
Top Amplitude
0.4
Re ≤ 3.106
0.3
Re > 3.106
0.2
0.1
5 10 15 20
DP29Jf04
Scruton Number Sc

XXIX-J 28 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 4 Wind Direction for Maximum Response
Stack 2 Stack 1
Wind direction for

DP29Jf05
maximum response

XXIX-J 29 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 5 The Reduction Of The Strouhal Number Caused By A Nearby Chimney
Strouhal number
0.2
0.1
0
5 10 15
a
d
DP29Jf06 Ratio distance - diameter
Figure 6 Circumferential Modal Pattern
DP29Jf07

XXIX-J 30 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 7 Acid Dewpoints In Stack Gases
10-1 1,000
a. 10% H2O from oil.

b. 6% H2O from coal.
Sulfur trioxide in gas, volume %
Sulfur trioxide in gas, ppm

b. 6% H2O a. 10% H2O by volume
10-2 100
10-3 10
Calculated dewpoint
versus sulfur
trioxide
Sulfur trioxide in gas, volume %
Sulfur trioxide in gas, ppm
concentration
b. 6% H2O
a. 10% H2O by
10-4 volume
1
a. 10% H2O from oil.

b. 6% H2O from coal.
10-5 0.1
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Dewpoint,°C
10-3 10
120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
(248) (266) (284) (302) (320) (338) (356) (374)
DP29Jf08 Dewpoint,°C (°F)

XXIX-J 31 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 8 Phase Diagram – Sulfuric Acid-Water Vapor
Gas
240
rve
t cu
oin
w-p
De
200
Temperature: °C
160
Mixture of gas
rv e
and condensate
cu
120
t
oin
g-p
ilin
80
Bo
40
Condensate
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
H2 SO4: Gew %
100 80 60 40 20 0
H2 O: Gew %
DP29Jf09
Figure 9 NPL Helical Strake
STRAKE-STACK CONNECTION DETAILS
Strakes Vertical Cross Section Horizontal Cross Section
Design Data Bolt with steel washer

Strake
• Strakes placed over the top
33 percent of the stack Strake
Lug welded
• 3 equally spaced helixes to stack and Inside of
Inside of
• Pitch of 5 times stack bolted to strake stack
stack
diameter shell plate Insulating*
shell plate
• Radial depth of 0.10 stack washer
diameters
• Maximum allowable Lug
distance between strakes
and stack shell shall be
0.1 x strake width *Insulating washer required if cooling
action of strakes, acting as cooling fins,
DP29Jf10 could cause acid corrosion

XXIX-J 32 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 10 B.N.M.I. Pendulum Damper
Pendulum
Gimbal
Ring Mass
Chimney
Ring Mass
Ring Mass
Damper - Pendulum Unit
Pendulum Damper On Chimney DP29Jf11
Figure 11 “Stelcon” Oil Bath Damper
Ring Channel
Access Hole
Ball Bearing
Pendulum
Length Of Pendulum
Chimney
Max. Deflection
Pendulum Mass
Damping Oil-Bath
Section In Channel
DP29Jf12

XXIX-J 33 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 12 General Arrangement of the “Kabe” Dynamic Vibration Absorber System
Note: Number of
Elements May Vary. A
Support Arm Top of

Chimney
Damper
Pendulum Element
Element
Support
Ringmass
Section A-A
DP29Jf13
Plan
Figure 13 Illustration of Prototype Vibration Absorber
Absorber Mass
Spring
4 ft. 3 in. (1.3 m)
Oil Damper
Universal Joint DP29Jf14

XXIX-J 34 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 14 Roll-Ring Damper
Cover Plate
Lifting Lug
Mass
Spherical Shell
Radius and Thickness
in Accordance with
Resonance Frequency
and Damping Center of Mass
Chimney Insulation Dp29Jf15

XXIX-J 35 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 15 Chain Damper Configuration
Xocos (ω τ )
Vibrating Structure
Rubber Covered Chain Containment Tube
DP29Jf16

XXIX-J 36 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 16 Self-Supporting Multi-Flue Chimney
Cap Plate
Lateral Supports
Mineral Wool Insulation
Jointing Flange
Liners
Structural Shell
Inlet
Liner Base
Drain Pipe
Base Cone
Access Door
DP29Jf17

XXIX-J 37 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 17 “Intelligent” System
9
C D
N(t)
C D
A
A
r(x)
B
B h H
2 +
8 x
u(t)
y
7
–
3 + 5 6
4
a b
1. Sensors
2. Stack dynamics 6. Controller
3. Reference dynamics 7. Hydraulic power
4. Analog comparator 8. Hydraulic actuator
5. Error 9. Arm
Co.l.
Disturbance
+
+ Response
Reference +
dynamics Σ Cc.l. Actuator Structure
Transducer
DP29Jf18 Block diagram of a compound closed loop-open loop structural control system

XXIX-J 38 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 18 Tied Stacks
35° 0°
22.8° 20°
DP29Jf19
90° 90°
Figure 19 Effective Reinforcement foR External Stiffener Ring
dt
e
X
d/2
DP29Jf20

XXIX-J 39 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 20 Base Plate
Shell
Locknut
Bolt
Stiffener Section X-X
x x
Grout
DP29Jf21
Figure 21 Wind Directions for Design of Guyed Chimneys
Stack
I I
∝
II ∝ = 45° ∝ = 30°
II
4 Guyed Wire Design 3 Guyed Wire Design
Where: I & II are Principal

Wind Directions for Design DP29Jf22

XXIX-J 40 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 22 Horizontal Support System for Steel Liner
Detail 'X'
Insulation
B
Insulation Packers
Steel Liner
DP29Jf23 Section A-A Section B-B

XXIX-J 41 of 41
STEEL STACKS
Figure 23 Aerodynamically Efficient Duct Entry Turning Vanes
A 0.2 in. (5 mm) Min
Shell
1.5A
Entry
Duct
1.5A
Hearth
Not less than 5 turning vanes in a bend

DP29Jf24 A = 12 in. maximum = R

Steel Stacks: Design Practices

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steel Stacks: Design Practices

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ExxonMobil Proprietary

CIVIL WORKS Section Page

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................................................7

DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................................................................................15

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

Computer Software ............................................................................................................................17

Figure 1 Available Stack Designs ......................................................................................................................25

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

Figure 15 Chain Damper Configuration ........................................................................................................... 35

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

Free-standing, Guyed or Tower Supported?

DATA REQUIRED BY THE DESIGNER

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

Possible Future Change of Operating Conditions

The design load distribution is given by:

w(Z) = w (Z) + w (Z) Eq. (1)

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

and: w(Z) = Along wind load, lb/ft

The velocity pressure, qz (psf), shall be calculated by:

Where: V = 3-second gust wind speed, mph

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

DYNAMIC RESPONSE TO THE WIND

Cross-Wind Flexural Response

where: Zcr = 5/6 of the stack height, ft

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

a. Terrain Exposure Constants

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

a. Steel Stack Structural Damping Values

Support Damping Value (βs)

where: Cf = Force Coefficient

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

Effect on Cross-Wind Response

S = 0.20 for A/D > 15 Eq. (11)

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

INTERNAL PRESSURE CHANGES

where: α = Gas density,lb/ft3

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

CHEMICAL EFFECTS AND ACID CORROSION

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

Longitudinal Flexural Strength

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

where: E = Young’s Modulus at design metal temperature, ksi

Y=1 when Le / r ≤ 60 and Fy ≤ 50 ksi

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

Sbl = Scl in Eq. (16) above, psi

CONTROLLING FLEXURAL DYNAMIC RESPONSE

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

Tying Closely Spaced Stacks

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

DESIGN OF BOLTED CONNECTIONS

BASE AND FOUNDATION DESIGN

where: T = Maximum bolt tension force

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

GUY ROPE DESIGN

STRUCTURE SUPPORTED AND STAYED STACKS

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

FLUE GAS FLOW CONTROL DEVICES

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

EXXONMOBIL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FAIRFAX, VA

V = Mean hourly wind speed, ft/s