Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 14 (1983) 153--166

153

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands

SIMPLIFIED APPROACHES TO THE EVALUATION OF THE ACROSS-WIND RESPONSE OF CHIMNEYS

B.J. Vickery
University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
and
R. Basu
H.G. Engineering Ltd., Toronto,

Canada

SUMMARY
A model for the prediction of the response of chimneys to vortex sheading
is outlined and the major characteristics of solutions employing the model are
described.
Simplified equations suitable for routine office use are derived.
For modes other than the fundamental the simplified forms require a knowledge of
the mode shapes and frequencies but, for the fundamental mode, it is shown that
an equivalent static load can be defined with a knowledge of the frequency only.
The application of the simplified forms is demonstrated with sample calculations presented for two chimneys.
The results of the simplified forms are
shown to be slightly conservative in relation to estimates obtained using the
detailed approach.

NOTATION
B
CL
d

fs
fi
g
h
m
me

bandwidth of spectrum
rms lift force coefficient
diameter
mean diameter of top third
of chimney
frequency
shedding frequency
frequency of ith mode
a peak factor
height of chimney
correlation length in diameters
mass per unit height
equivalent mass per unit length

Strouhal Number

S(f) spectral density function

t
taper (d d(z)/dz)
VM
wind speed at maximum response
w
z
B
~a
~s

Ks;K a

load per unit height

height above ground
damping as a fraction of critical
aerodynamic damping
structural damping

mBs/Pd2; -mBa/Pd 2

aspect ratio, h/d

a a . rms modal amplitude of ith mode
e i ratio of tip to base diameter

(other symbols are defined as they arise in the text)

I.

INTRODUCTION
It is well known that tall slender structures of circular cross-section,

such as chimneys,

towers, etc., under wind loading respond dynamically in the

across-wind direction,

as well as the along-wind direction.

For such structures

the dynamic response in the across-wind direction is often greater than alongwind.
The mechanics of across-wind response resulting from vortex-shedding forces
are less well-understood

0167-6105/83/$03.00

than along-wind response to atmospheric turbulence.

1983 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

154

Nevertheless,

random vibration theory has been applied to the problem

theory is found to be adequate for small amplitudes.

greater than about I% of the diameter,
results.

[I I.

The

For larger amplitudes,

they theory yields unconservative

The characteristic of the load-response relationship in the across-

wind direction which gives rise to this underestimate

amplitude-dependent.

is that the load is

Thus a modification becomes necessary to accommodate this

feature.
In the paragraphs below an outline of the theoretical model developed to
predict response to vortex shedding forces is given.

Since the form of model is

not suitable for design office use a number of simplified methods have been
formulated;

these are described.

A comparison between the detailed and

simplified approaches is made using reinforced concrete chimney of typical

dimensions as examples.

A comprehesive

been given by Vickery & Basu

2.

treatment of the detailed approach has

[2,3].

OUTLINE OF A MODEL FOR PREDICTING THE RESPONSE OF TALL SLENDER STRUCTURES

TO VORTEX-SHEDDING FORCES
The following paragraphs outline the development of a mathematical model

for predicting the lateral response of tall slender structures,

chimneys,

to vortex shedding forces.

such as

It is assumed that the dynamic response in

each mode can be treated independently of response in other modes.

The total

response can be calculated by superimposing the response for all modes as

follows:

y(z,t)

where

~
ai(t ) ~i(z)
i=i

ai : modal coefficient for mode

(i)

i;

~i(z) : mode shape for mode

The response in each mode is calculated assuming that;

(i)

the vortex shedding forces can be modelled as a narrow-band random force

with a normal distribution and with the following characteristics;
(a)

the spectrum of

w(z,t),

the force per unit length at some point,

z, is of the form:

Note:

gw 2

f Sw(f)/U w 2 : I / B ~

exp { -((l-f/fs)/B) 2 }

O w 2 = CL 2 {%Q

d 2 = variance

u 2}2

of w(z,t)

above refers to that part of the total variance in the vicnity ol

f = fs, the complete spectrum also contains energy at low frequencies

but this is associated primarily with turbulence in the flow and while
influencing the response at high velocities does not contribute
significantly when

fs is in the vicinity of the natural frequency,

i.e.; at or near the so-called "critical" velocity.

fo,

155

(b)

The co-spectrum describing the vortex shedding forces at positions

zl, and

z3 can be expressed in the form;

CoCW , zl, z2 = /Sw(zl,f)"

R(zl, z2) =

where

RCZl, z 2)

cos (2r/3)

21z

(3a)

{exp(-(r/3i) 2}

(3b)

z21/(d(z 1) + d(z2))

(ii) The motion dependent forces can be represented by a non-linear

aerodynamic force such that at a particular section;

WdCZ)

(4)

+47 p d 2 fo Kao(l - (Uy/UL)2)

where

and

intensity of turbulence

Re

Reynolds Number

~y

r.m.s, displacement

a limiting r.m.s, displacement equal to ~d.

Accepting the descriptions in (i) and (ii) above it can be shown

Uai/d 0 = C 3 / { B s - (Pdo2/me)(Ci-C2
where;

do

tip diameter

me

fhm(z)

C3

fh Kao(Z) (d(z)/do)2

1/~2 fh

Kao(Z) ~i 4 (z)

exp(-(r/3) 2)

The complexity of Equations

adapatable to a design situation;

(8)

l-f/fs2

{2C/-~ Sfs) exp(-l---~-)

{z/~ Bfs)
3

~i 2 Cz) dz

c~ ~a 2

{f~f~

exp (-%{

2r
--

~z/fh
o

c ~ p d u 2 ~u ~

COS

(7)

~i2(z) dz/fh ~i2(z) dz

0

/~ fo~
2meh(2~fo)2do

(6)

c2

(5)

(~ai/do)2)}

~iZCz) dz/f h ~i2z) dz

CI

{2,3}

aai , can be closely approximated as;

that the r.m.s, modal amplitude,

) } z:z I

1-f/~ J}z=z2
B

~i(zl) ~i(z3) dzldz2}

(9)

(5) to (9) is such that they are not readily

further to this, the doubts that presently

surround the definitions of values for the various aerodynamic coefficients

are considerable and some loss of accuracy can be accepted in developing simp-

156

lifications.

Before proceeding

to these simplifications

examine the general characteristics

3.

of solutions

it is of interest to

to the equations.

NATURE OF THE RESPONSE PREDICTED BY THE PROPOSED MODEL

For the purposes of examining

to (8) it is sufficient
long cylinder with
velocity when

to consider

u(z)

= u, d ( z )

and

K s = mSs/Dd 2

the form taken for uniform motion of a

= do

and

(1-(~a/~do)2)}

is dependent

the structure and the aerodynamic

~(z) = i

and at the critical

(i0)

upon the mass and aspect ratio of

parameters,

CL, , B

form will hold for more complex systems and in Fig.

is plotted together with the experimental
measurements

(5)

In this case the equation is of the form

f s = fo"

~a/d o = C/{Ks-Kao

where

the nature of the solution of equations

of a cantilever

and

S.

This general

I an equation of this form

results of Wooton

[4] obtained

from

structure.

The response relationship

defined by Equation

10 divides naturally

into

three regions as follows;

(i)

A large amplitude

or "lock-in"

region corresponding

mass and/or damping and in which the response

and hence independent

aerodynamic

Ua/d 0 :

{i

is determined

- Ks/Kao }

motion)

(ii) A small amplitude

only by the nature of the

as demonstrated

Fig. 2a and the peak factor

sinusoidal

of

cylinder.

damping and is given by;

(ii)

Within this region the response exhibits

tions in amplitude

is independent

of the forces acting on a stationary

In this region the response

non-linear

to low values of

comparatively

minor varia-

by the computed response

(which approaches / 7

trace in

for a steady

shown in Fig. 3.
region in which the response can be regarded as

random forcing with linear positive damping at a value below that

provided structurally
Ua/d o

and in which the response

is given by;

C/{K s - Kao}

In this region the response

is nearly Gaussian as shown by the trace

in Fig. 2c and by the peak factors in Fig. 3.

(iii)

A transition

region in the vicinity of

K s = Kao

response changes from random to almost sinusoidal

exhibit an exeeptionally

strong dependence on

The simplified methods which are developed

assume that "small" amplitudes
are of the form;

in which the
and the amplitudes

Ks.

in the following section

result and the equations

developed

157

0.10

Experimental
Re No =- 600000
Height/Diamete~ = 11.5
0.0043
[K s - 0.54 ( ] - (

"Lock-ln", ~
Regime

Y ~ ) )1

I
t

i,
D

FIG. 1

- -

Variation of RMS
Amplitude with K s
(Wooton)

o23~,

max

001

"Transition"
Regim

0(301

__

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.6

t__

08

1.0

t _ _ - J

2.0,

40
Ks

(a)

C/C .

0.2$

0.5 d

~:~ l~l~nI~lIlllIllllll

I Il I I II
:~""~"~A~"""`~""~`"~"~""`~"~`~"~"~`"","~Li~U~W~]~g~i~W~[~[~[[~[~[~[~[~[~

Lo.5 d
O.

(b)

cIc= o,5~

]]lllllJllllllllllll"""""tllllllI]m~IIIIIII1
mil~fIInlllllililllniliH/n~lllnltlmlllglllJlllljllll/ljr
ii[lilllllllllIlilljlllmiJllt

o jlllllllillllllilllJilll[lmmmmlrmmUlllnl.,..,.mmrllltrmmmmlmll]l
o. t d
(c)

C/co - 2~

l- 0.03 d
FIG.

NUMERICALLYSIMULATEDRESPONSETO SHEDDING
IN LARGESCALE (L/D> lO0) TURBULENCE
Cl I" 0.20, i - O.lO, M/odz'lO0

158

&

Narl~w B i n d G e u s s ~ n

1~---41

0% 50

30

3o
3O

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Ks/K%

FIG. 3

Variation of Peak Factor With Ks/K a For Varying

Scales and Intensities of Turbulence

3.0

/q
\

2.5

.J

rn

2.0

-IN

u.i

i.o

.5

.5

i.O

1.5

K V / VCRIT

FIG. 4

~ (B,k); Influence of Bandwidth on Response

2)

2.5

159

~a/d 0 : C/{K s - Kao}

{13)

which is conservative but does not yield a solution for

Ks = Ka

Since amplitudes in the vicinity of

K s < Ka o.

are extremely

difficult to predict due to the strong dependence on two poorly

defined parameters
Bs

4.

(Ks,Kao) it would normally be wise to ensure that

and m are sufficient to avoid large motions.

SIMPLIFIED FORMS OF THE RESPONSE EQUATIONS

4.1

Chimneys of Constant or Near Constant Diameter

For free-standing chimneys excited in the first or second mode the bulk

of the excitation is due to forces over the top one-third

(typically,

the res-

ponse computed assuming forces over the top third only amounts to 90%+ of that
computed assuming excitation over the complete height).

It is therefore

reasonable to neglect the variation of wind speed with height and assume a
constant speed equal to the average over the top one third.

The response

equation then becomes;

Ua i
d =

CL

(2__.X_)

Pd 2

me

,{B,k)/{~f h * i 2 ( z ) d z }
n o

{Ss-dKa( Pd )}
me

where
1

~(B,k)

k
The function
values of

1 k~ 2
l-k- 2}
~B
exp {-(
)
B

(14)

=
V/VCRIT ,
;
VCRIT
=
-~1 fi d
~(B~k)
is shown in Fig. 4 and it is apparent that for

encountered in turbulent flow (about 0.10 to 0.30) that the peak

value is about 2.5 and that this occurs in the vicinity of

peak response occurs at a wind speed

(VMAx)

k = I.i, i.e. the

which is about 10% greater than

the critical speed defined by the Strouhal Number.

The maximum response is

then;

Oai
(

~_

CL

2.5

Pd 2
_ _
z--------2
8W S
me

/~Z
(
21

2
)/( ~s_K a %
me

(L
h

fh ~i (z)dz)
o

(15)

and occurs at a wind speed;

VMA X ~

i.i

(lid~S)

(16)

In many instances the critical speed for modes other than the fundamental
mode are well beyond the design speed and, for the fundamental mode only, an
equivalent static load can be defined.

The load distribution for this static

load should follow the distribution of the inertial loads for vibration in the
fundamental mode.

For reinforced concrete chimneys Gho

[7] has shown that this

can be approximated by a simple linear distribution of the form; w(z)=Wo(Z/h ).

160

Wo is chosen as

If

can be determined

Wo = C

by equating

pv2/2

then the values of

the modal amplitude,

gdal,

to the peak modal amplitude,

defined

and

ae, due to the load

by Equation

17.

w(z)

This procedure

yields the result;

pd2

c~

Ua i
F

2.5q

where

-~

__
8n2S 2 m e

(L

p 2

)/(6s_K a Pd )%
fh ~i2(z)dz) (17)
2~
me
h
o
i
1
(C/8W2)(pd2/me)(V/fod)f
~(x) xdx/f
~2(x) xdx
o
o

-~

z/h ; g = a peak factor with a value of about 4

and hence

2.5gCr,
(6s-KaPd2/me

If
maximum

(/____-~) . (fQd)2
21
VS

fod/VS ~ I/i.I0;

then

~(x){1.73
C

accepting

for ~(x) = x and

w(z) ~

4.2

x dx

Tapered

a correlation

static

3.4 gC L

length of one diameter

on mode shape varies only slightly

1.79 for

~(x) = x 2}

3.4 g C L / F ~ / { ~ s - K a P d 2 / m e }

That is, the equivalent

where;

fol~(x)

is chosen to be the mean speed at which the response attains a

and noting that the term dependent

with

fo I 92(x)dx)

load

w(z)

it follows

that;

is given by;

(PV 2) d ( z / h ) / V ~ / { ~ s - K a P d 2 / m e }

I.i fod/S

Chimneys

A slightly modified

form of an a p p r o x i m a t i o n

dai, derived by Vickery and Clark

CLPd4(Ze)

to the rms modal amplitude,

~11 is

~i(Ze)

(~/2t)

ai
where

Ze

(zs)

8~2S2mehlo I ~i2(x)dx
=

~(Ze)

height at which

(B s + 6a)

~(z) = I/S lid(z)

d d(z)
d(z)
) + ~ z )Z=Ze
(-( dz

{2A

Ze-A

6t

(z) dz} %

Z=Ze

: the length of the chimney over which the diamter

changes by one sixth.

The m a x i m u m response

d~fz)

maximum.

occurs when

is such that

@(z)//~

is a

161

For the case of a constant taper in u n i f o r m flow the m a x i m u m response in

the funademental mode can be evaluated for a mode shape of the form
z N.

In this case the height,

ZM/h

zM

at w h i c h

N/((N+4)(I-8))

where

Ca

~(z) =

attains a m a x i m u m given by;

e = d(h)/d(o)

= tip d i a m . ~ b a s e

In m a n y cases the f u n d a m e n t a l mode shape is well a p p r o x i m a t e d w i t h

diam.
N = 2

and then;
ZM/h = 1/3(1-6)

and

The critical speed is

be evaluated as before.

and

d(zs)/d(o)

= 2/3

I / S 2/3 d(o) fo

and an equivalent static load can

The equivalent load is again set as;

w(z)

Wo(Z/h)

g(

where

4
)2
9(1-@)

w o = C ( p V C z)

CL {

nd(o)Z
2(!-O)h

d(o)

(19a)

1
(Bs + Be)

putting l o : h/d(o)

4
)2
9!-0 )

c
.~

}~

-- ~r s
~ cL,'(/~,~o

+ ~~ s i~)
~

The result obtained for a tapered chimney is invalid for

the results for a uniform structure must be employed.
d, can ee evaluated by equatin 6 the values of
and

19.

(19b)

2(~-@ )

wo

near

I and

The transition value of

computed from Equations

It is then n e c e s s a r y to define a representative diameter,

17

d, w h i c h

will be taken as the average diameter over the top third of the chimney.

The

equivalent static loads may then be expressed as;

w{z) :
where for

% 9 ~v~:2 ~ (=/h)

2e)

i.I !/S fc c-~

(2!a

3 . U T C L ( / l }4/(~ s + ~a,!~

(21Z !

-K a p c2,'Sme

(21c)

neap I;

Vy.
C

~a
and for small 0 ;

3.64 g C L
C

c ,
(--/:~

({D s + ~:~a) ~:

( ~_-i~ )5/2 (i+fC

)3/2

4fo~/S(i+50 )

0
=

(32b)

~i~

The ratio of the two values of

(r?(=) for

(22a)

:
i

w(z)

is then;

!.!/(Te(z) for
@

{~ <<

i} : 0 . 0 7 ! ( ! - C )siZ(z+50)712

0.5

Thus, E q u a t i o n 21 is applicable for a tip to bas~ iameter Patio between 0.5

and

162

1.0 and Equation 22 for ratios less than 0.5.

For values of

less than 0.5

the negative aerodynamic is weakened from that acting on uniform or lightly

tapered stacks and

8a

can be evaluated from the empirical relationship

8a(@<%)

5.

-(KaPd2/me)(0.6+0.8@)

(23)

COMPARISON OF DETAILED AND APPROXIMATE METHODS

The first mode response of the two chimneys shown in Fig. 5 were computed

using the detailed method defined by Equations

the approximations

(5) to (8) and compared with

defined by Equations 20 to 22.

The dynamic properties of

the two chimneys are shown in Figs. 6 and 7 and the predicted peak base moments
in Figs.

8 and 9.

The relevant data employed in the computations were;

Strouhal Number,

= 0.22

Correlation Length,

= 1

Aerodynamic Damping

K a = 0.6

g = /2~oT

RMS Lift Coefficients,

CL

= 0.20

Structural Damping

~s

= 0.01

Terrain Roughness

zo = . O 0 8 m

+ 0.577//21nfoT

The chosen parameters are not unreasonable

general application.

but should not be accepted for

The choice of suitable aerodynamic parameters is

discussed by Basu [5] who suggests that the values of 0.2 for

CL

is

excessive for "smooth" structures in the absence of small scale turbulence.

The calculations for the approximate evaluations are presented below;
Chimney No.

0.96

vM

i.I

(>
x

17.63

3.65

k
m/p d 2

1/0.22

17.63

= 32.1

m/s

= 10.98

3.65

0.20

1
x

11.6

126

126 x

1576

0.333

vn

4/(1

16.8m

3.55

Moment

=
(0.01

Base

0.364

103
3.4

wfz)

193.6/17.63
=

0.5)

- 0.60/103)
x

17.63

(z/h)

)%

Ii.6

10.98
x

1.20

32.12

z/h

.252

kN/m

193.6

106

2/3

193.6

Nm

Chimney No. 2
(<

0.5)

+ 5/3)

1/0.22

16.8

28.9

m/s

163

, 12.6m

Overall Dimensions of Chimneys

FIG. 5

30(3

2C~

= 17.63m

10C
= 17.63rn
>= 37.8m

= 18.4m

Chimn~ No. 1

0.8
0.6
H
0.4

FIG. 6

= 193.6m

f=

MI

= 7.44 x 106 kg

Modal Properties of Chimney No. 1

0.364 Hz

/ 1

1.0

(~zI

No. 2

Chlmn~

0.2
I

10

20

3O

411

~(z)

FIG. 7 Modal Properties of Chimney No. 2

H = 365 8m
f t = 0.252 Hz

/J

f2 = 0,88 Hz
MI=

13.3 x 106 kg

MZ= 15,5 x 106 kg /

/
1
\
,

M l

X
x BM 2

-3

-2

-1

-40

-20

20

80

164

1500

~'/s = 0.01

0
;,

oE

1000

500

rot

10

15

20

25

30
U 1o (m/s)

FIG. 8

Vortex Shedding Response Calculated by Detailed Method

- Chimney 1

2000
175 = 0.01

/~M ode

x 1500
z

~E I000

.E

500

10

20

--

30

40

50
Ulolm/sl

FIG. 9

Vortex Shedding Response Calculaled by Detailed Method

- Chimney 2

35

165

m/Dd 2

365.8/16.8

107
3.64

Base

Moment

3.55

0.20

=
(0.01

= 21.8

- 0.60/103)

4.50

38

(z/h)

38

1690

16.8

1
(
)
21.8
1.20

1
= 4.5
(.67)5/2(2.67)3/2

28.9 2

(z/h)

kN/m
x

106

365.8

2/3

x 365.8

Nm

The simplified forms requiring a knowledge of the mode shape may also be
used to obtain estimates of the maximum base moment and these are included in
Table I together with the results of the detailed approach.

As would be expected

from the nature of the approximations used in deriving the simplified methods
these yield conservative estimates.

In the two examples the static load approach

yields estimates which are 8% and 16% high while the simplified modal approach
yields Ist mode estimates which are high by 7%,

18% while the estimate for the

second mode is 3% greater than that of the detailed approaeh.

6.

CONCLUSIONS
The simplified forms developed have been demonstrated to provide adequate

but slightly conservative estimates of the response of reinforced concrete

chimneys to vortex shedding.

Their successful use, however, is dependent upon

the selection of the required aerodynamic coefficients.

This is an area which

is not covered in the paper but which has been addressed by Basu 15J in considerable depth.
CL

The work of Basu draws attention to the dependency of

S, K a

and

on surface roughness, the presence of small scale turbulence and on aspect

ratio.

Unfortunately, there is a dearth of data at full scale values of Reynolds

Number and, as a consequence, a high level of uncertainty must be accepted in

the predictions of vortex induced response.

Even with a careful appraisal of

a particular situation with known roughness and turbulence the level of

accuracy (estimated 80% confidence limits) is roughness
for S,

25% for

Ka

and

20% for

25% for

CL,

I0%

Z; coupled with a typical accuracy ievel

of 20% for the structural damping the resultant level of reliability on the
prediction is of the order of

40%.

This figure is not inconsistent with the

comparison of predicted and measured responses presented by Vickery and Basu

16] although the latter suggest that the full scale observations are more
likely to fall below the predicted and in a range from about +20% to -50%.
With these accuracy estimates in view it is clear that the errors associated
with the approximation introduced in deriving the simplified response
equations are barely if at all significant.

166
TABLE I:

Comparison of Response Predictions

Method
Chimney I: Mode I
Detailed
Simplified
Static Load Approx.
Chimney 2: Mode I
Detailed
Simplified
Static Load Approx.
Chimney 2 : Mode 2
Detailed
Simplified
Static Load Approx.

Max. Base
Moment
Nm x 106

Speed (@ 10m)
at Max. Resp.
m/s

1430

22.6
1533
1576

1460

23.0
23.0

20.0
1730
1690

1790

20.6
20.6

39
1850

38
not applicable

REFERENCES

I.
2.

4.
5.

6.

7.

Vickery, BJ. and Clark, A.Q., "Lift or across-wind response of tapered

stacks," Proc. A.S.C.E., J. Struct. Div.; Vol. 98, 1972, (pp. 1-20).
Vickery, B.J. and Basu, R., "Aross-wind vibrations of structures of
circular cross-section. Part I: Development of a model for twodimensional conditions," to be published, J.W.E. and I.A.
Wooton, L.R., "The oscillation of large circular stacks in wind," Proc.
Inst. Civ. Eng., Vol. 43, 1969 (pp. 573-598).
Basu, R., "Across-wind response of slender structures of circular crosssection to atmospheric turbulence," Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. Eng. Sc., Univ.
Western Ont., London, Canada, 1982.
Vickery, B.J. and Basu, R., "A comparison of model and full-scale
behaviour in wind of towers and chimneys," Proc. Int. Workshop on Wind
Tunnel Modelling Criteria and Techniques, N.B.C., Gaithersburg, April
1982.
Gho, B.T., "Along-wind response of chimneys," M.E.Sc. Thesis, Fac. of
Eng. Sc., Univ. Western Ont., London, Canada, 1983.