See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289095571

Recent amendments to the VGB guideline on the design and construction of

cooling towers in power plants

Article  in  VGB PowerTech · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

2 733

4 authors, including:

Hans‐Jürgen Niemann
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
30 PUBLICATIONS   122 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dynamic Effects of Train Passage on Noise Protection Walls View project

Infrastructure for harvesting sustainable and renewable energy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hans‐Jürgen Niemann on 21 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Amended VGB Guideline on cooling towers

Recent amendments to the VGB Guideline on the design

and construction of cooling towers in power plants
Hans-Jürgen Niemann, Reinhard Harte, Joachim Meyer and Ralf Wörmann

Kurzfassung
Aktuelle Änderungen der VGB-
Richtlinie über Auslegung und Bau
von Kühltürmen in Kraftwerken
Im Hinblick auf die bevorstehende bauauf-
sichtliche Einführung europäischer Normen
wurde eine Anpassung der VGB-Richtlinie für
den bautechnischen Entwurf, die Berechnung,
die Konstruktion und die Ausführung von Kühl-
türmen notwendig. Die neue Fassung 2010
der VGB-R 610 greift – wie auch alle Fassun-
gen zuvor – die Erfahrungen von Anlagen- und
Bauplanern, von Bauausführenden, Prüfinge-
nieuren, Wissenschaftlern und Bauherren auf
und stellt den aktuellen Stand von Wissen-
schaft und Technik dar.
Neben der Weiterentwicklung betontechnolo-
gischer Konzepte werden in der VGB-Richt­
linie erstmals Angaben zur Anwendung eines
Betons mit hohem Widerstand gegen Säure-
angriff gemacht, bei dem auf die Verwendung
einer Beschichtung der Kühlturminnenfläche
verzichtet werden kann.
Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt der Überarbeitung
stellt die Aktualisierung von Einwirkungswerten
sowie des Sicherheitskonzeptes für Wind und
Temperaturen dar. Neu gewonnene Erkennt-
nisse bei der Anwendung extremwertstatisti-
scher Auswerteverfahren für Extremwinde auf
Basis der PROGUMBEL-Software lassen eine
Reduzierung des bislang erhöhten Teilsicher-
heitsbeiwertes zu. Dies wird vor dem Hinter-
grund der historischen Entwicklung der in der
VGB-Richtlinie geregelten Windeinwirkung im
vorliegenden Beitrag detailliert erläutert.
Gleichfalls wird der neue Ansatz für betriebs-
bedingte Temperatureinwirkungen ausführlich
dargestellt und abschließend werden die Aus-
wirkungen auf die Bewehrung einer repräsen-
tativen Kühlturmschale untersucht.
Authors
Professor Dr.-Ing. Hans-Jürgen Niemann
Ingenieurgesellschaft Niemann & Partner
Bochum/Germany
VGB PowerTech - Autorenexemplar - © 2011
Motivation for revising the guideline
Since 45 years, all German cooling towers
have been designed according to the recently
valid 2005-edition and earlier editions of the
guideline VGB-R 610e “Structural Design of
Cooling Towers” – 2010 [1].
They have successfully resisted the mechani-
cal, chemical and thermal stresses, as can be
seen from the actual photograph of the Herne
IV cooling tower, built in 1989 ( F i g u r e 1 ).
Further, this guideline has been adopted for
numerous cooling tower projects worldwide,
and thus represents the internationally accept-
ed state of the art of cooling tower design and
construction.
Forced by the compulsory transposition of the
European Directive EUROCODES by mid-
2012, a revision of the guideline on the struc-
tural design of cooling towers [2] became nec-
essary. This revised 2010-edition has already
been published in German, an English version
is being printed. Besides fulfilling EUROCO-
DES, the new edition includes further im-
provements with respect to safe and reliable
structural design:
−− Continuous improvements of concrete tech-
nology concepts,
−− Highly resistant concrete against acid at-
tack,
−− Probabilistic-based partial safety factor for
wind load,
−− Realistic consideration of thermal effects,
−− Requirements for increased durability.
To guarantee high quality standards and safe
reliability of the cooling tower components
during power plants’ lifetime, this new edition
for the structural design of cooling towers [1]
The main intention of [1] is to provide a uni-
form standard for the safe and reliable design
and verification of cooling towers. Thus, it
specifies in detail actions, structural analysis
methods, safety concept and construction re-
quirements. The present paper will not cover
all those aspects, but will mainly explain the
background for the modifications of the treat-
ment of wind-load and of thermal effects in
the design concept and its consequences for
the structural safety and reliability of cooling
towers.
Revision of the partial safety factor
for wind loading
Wi n d l o a d m o d e l
The design of cooling tower shells for wind
loading is based on the concept of equivalent
static pressures. The pressures are derived
from temporal mean values adequately ampli-
fied to account for the effects of the spatio-
temporal stochastic loading process of the
pressure fluctuations. The load amplification
has been derived from the gust response factor
of those structural effects which are leading in
the design. The gust response factors were cal-
culated based on a linear bending theory ap-
plying the co-variance method for the quasi-
static response, and the spectral method for
the resonant response. However, in the shell
design multiple responses are leading, e.g.
tension or bending for the reinforcement, or
compression for buckling safety. Each of them
will attain its peak values at different wind
load distributions. Therefore, two wind load
cases are considered in the VGB Guideline

Professor Dr.-Ing. Reinhard Harte is accompanied by further established or new

Bergische Universität Wuppertal VGB-guidelines:
Head of Department of Civil Engineering
Wuppertal/Germany
−− VGB-R 135e
Planning of Cooling Towers – 1997.
Dipl.-Ing. Joachim Meyer
ZERNA INGENIEURE GmbH
−− VGB-R 612e
Head of Department Engineering of Power Protection Measures on Reinforced Con-
Plants & Industrial Buildings crete Cooling Towers and Chimneys against
Bochum/Germany Operational and Environmental Impacts –
Dr.-Ing. Ralf Wörmann 2010.
Krätzig & Partner Ingenieurgesellschaft −− VGB-R 613e
für Bautechnik mbH
Code of Practice for Lifecycle Management Figure 1. Cooling tower of the Herne power
Managing Partner
Bochum/Germany of Reinforced Concrete Cooling Towers in plant (Germany). Built in 1989,
Power Plants – 2010. foto taken in 2009 (Foto: STEAG).

94 VGB PowerTech 9/2011

>>> VGB DIGITAL <<<
 Amended VGB Guideline on cooling towers

[1]. The first one, We is derived from the ex-
ternal wind pressures and given by
We: we (z,θ) = cpe(θ) φ FI qb(z) (1)
where z – height above ground; θ – horizontal
angle with θ = 0° at stagnation; cpe – external
pressure coefficient; φ - dynamic factor ac-
counting for resonance to turbulence; FI – in-
terference factor accounting for an increase of
the shell response by neighbouring buildings;
qb – gust wind velocity pressure. The gust
wind velocity pressure qb accounts for the ef-
fects of the pressure fluctuations on the struc-
tural response.
The internal pressures are determined by the
flow at the top of the tower, namely by qb(H).
Their mean is distributed uniformly over the
circumference and the tower height. The inter-
nal pressure fluctuations are band-limited with
a cut-off frequency in the order of the ratio of
the mean wind speed to the diameter at the
tower top. Therefore, the effect of resonance to
turbulence is small and φ = 1 for the loading
by internal pressures. External and internal
pressure fluctuations are uncorrelated. Based
on these observations, the second wind load
case is given by
We + Wi: w(z,θ) = procedures and target values in the partial fac-
= cpe(θ) φ FI qb(z) – cpi FI qb(H) (2)
The wind load case W is either W = We or W =
We + Wi whichever is more unfavourable.
Partial factors for wind
loading in the past
The real level of reliability depends on para­
meters such as the workmanship in the con-
struction work, the material quality and the
designer’s expertise. On the other hand, the op-
erational level of reliability is a matter of the
provisions in the design code, in particular:
−− The return period of the characteristic wind
speed in connection with the wind load
safety factor,
−− The nominal value of the dead load in con-
junction with the partial factors for unfa-
vourable or favourable action effects,
−− The structural resistance, mainly the yield
VGB PowerTech - Autorenexemplar - © 2011
Compressive failure of concrete yield strength anywhere in the shell under the
E{1.00 G + 1.5 W} ≤ fc28/1.5 actions of G and W alone:
(G – dead load; W – wind load) Asfyk
n(γwWk) ≤ ––––– – n(γGGm) (3)
γs
A return period of 200 years is attributed to
the design wind load. Internal pressure is not Introducing the code values for the partial fac-
considered. No detailed provisions are given tors of steel and dead load, the limit state func-
for the buckling safety. The partial wind load tion becomes:
factor was chosen as γW = 1.50; however, the Asfyk
value to be adopted in a project was often ne- n(γwWk) ≤ ––––– – n(1.00 · Gm) (4)
1.15
gotiated with the owner.
(ii) The probability of extreme wind loads is
1 9 7 9 : VG B G u i d e l i n e [ 4 ] derived from the probability of the annual
wind speed maxima. Typically, a cumulative
Tensile failure of reinforcement Gumbel type I distribution is fitted to ob-
E{1.00 G + 1.75 We}≤ fyk served data. A threshold velocity v is not ex-
Buckling safety ceeded with probability F(v) which is given by
E{1.00 G + 1.00 (We + Wi)} ≤ Ecrit/5 the Gumbel I expression as
In 1979, γW = 1.75 was recommended, again P (≤ v) = F (v)
to be considered with a partial factor of γM = πv–µ
1 for the yield strength. An operational failure = exp ∙– exp ∙– ∙– –––– +E∙∙∙ (5)
∙6 σ
probability of ≤ 5 · 10-4 was attributed to this
value. It was confirmed in the editions of 1980 where µ – mean, σ – standard deviation of the
[5], 1990 and 1997. yearly extremes; E = 0.577 is the Euler number.
Given the non-exceedence probability F(v),
In 2001, the code DIN 1055-100: “Basis of the threshold velocity (e.g. the characteristic
design, safety concepts and design rules” was
value or the design value) can be calculated:
introduced in Germany which specified the
∙6
v = µ ∙1 + –– V ∙– In∙– In(F(v))∙ – E∙∙ (6)
tor method. The code assesses a wind load fac- π
tor of 1.50 when the wind load is leading, and
a partial factor of γM = 1.15 for the yield Here, V = σ/µ – coefficient of variation. An
strength. Nominally, this ensures a safety in- average value of V = 0.12 is typical for a mid-
dex of β = 3.8 (failure probability 7 · 10-5) in latitudes wind climate. The square root of the
a service life of 50 years, or β = 4.7 and Pf = partial factor γw equals the ratio of design and
1.3 · 10-6 in a reference period of 1 year. The characteristic wind speeds:
safety concept of cooling towers was adapted vd
∙γw = ––
v
to this new framework in the 2005-edition. For k
the specific needs of cooling towers, the wind ∙6 ∙ ∙
π V – In∙– In(F(vd))∙ – E 
1 + –– (7)
load factor was recalculated and γW = 1.6 was –––––––––––––––––––––––––
=
obtained. This decrease from 1.75 was in part ∙6 ∙ ∙
π V – In∙– In(F(vk)∙ – E
1 + ––
due to the increase of γM from 1 to 1.15.
The characteristic wind velocity vk is exceed-
2 0 0 5 : VG B G u i d e l i n e [ 2 ]
ed by definition with probability 0.02, or not
Tensile failure of reinforcement exceeded with probability P(≤ vk) = 0.98. The
E{1.00 G + 1.60 W + 1.50 · B + 1.50 · S} requirement for the design wind speed vd is
≤ fyk/1.15 specified in EN 1990, section B.5:
Compressive failure of concrete
{1.35 G + 1.60 W + 1.50 · B + 1.50 · S} P (≤ vd) = Φ (–αE · β) (8)
≤ fc/1.5
where Φ designates the Gaussian probability
Buckling safety
distribution; αE is a weighting factor for the

strength of the steel reinforcement and the
buckling capacity combined with their re-
lated partial factors.
A brief retrospect may highlight the develop-
ment in the past. In the following equations
E{X} designates the action effect due to a load
combination X.
1970: VIK guideline [3]
Design in the so-called critical state which
corresponds to the failure limit state:
Tensile failure of the reinforcement (i) Tensile failure of the reinforcement occurs
E{1.00 G + 1.5 W} ≤ fyk
E{1.00 G + 1.00 (We + Wi)} ≤ Ecrit/5
(B – soil settlement; S – shrinkage)
Current level of reliability based
on conventional storm statistics
The reliability is calculated applying the level
I method. The basic conditions are as fol-
lows:
when the tensile membrane force n reaches the
action effect. A value of αE = –0.7 is recom-
mended in DIN 1055-100 in accordance with
EN 1990 in the case that an action is leading.
Considering one year as the proper reference
period, the safety index is β = 4.7 (reliability
class RC 2 for standard risk). With this target,
the partial factor from equation (7) is calcu-
lated as
βw = 1.62 ≅1.6,
as has been specified in the 2005-edition [2].

VGB PowerTech 9/2011 95

>>> VGB DIGITAL <<<
 Amended VGB Guideline on cooling towers

with τ < 0 there is a lower boundary and no

0.99999 boundary at the upper tail. For type III with
τ > 0 there is an upper boundary but no lower
tail boundary. Type I corresponds to τ = 0 and
0.99995 is without boundaries.
0.9999 The type III distribution alone is capable to
include the upper limit vmax in storm statistics.
Regarding the statistical procedures details
0.9995 may be found in [6]. The upper limit is related
0.999
to the curvature τ by,

vmax – µ f1 (τ)
––––––– = –––– (12)
σ f2 (τ)
Probability of non-exceedance

0.995
The data from Figure 2 were analysed apply-
0.99
ing the ProGumbel software [7]. The mean in a
sample of n = 44 annual maxima is 38.08 m/s
and the observed sample maximum 50.0 m/s.
0.95 They are amongst the highest values in Ger-
0.9 many. The curvature parameter has a mean of
τm = 0.132 with confidence interval – 0.009 <
τ < 0.238. Monte-Carlo simulations show that
the reliability in predicting the mean µ and the
0.5 standard deviation σ is satisfactory for wind
data samples covering 30 or more years. Cal-
0.1 culation of the upper limit or the curvature
parameter is not straightforward even for large
0.01
0.001 samples. Data from weather stations with high
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 exposure and a high mean of the yearly ex-
tremes show a clear upper limit. 169 weather
Wind speed in m/s
stations in Germany have been analysed and
Figure 2. O
 bserved extreme wind speeds at the Brocken mountain in Germany, 1142 m above
the corresponding curvature was obtained be-
sea level. Parameters of fitted Gumbel type III cumulative probability distribution: tween τ = 0.07…0.15. The partial factor for
mean µ = 38.08 m/s; standard deviation σ = 4.60 m/s; coefficient of variation V = the Gumbel type III distribution becomes
0,121; curvature τ = 0.132; upper limit vmax = 67.65 m/s.
f1 – ∙–ln(1 – Φ(αEβ)∙τ
1+V––––––––––––––––––
value, µ, and standard deviation, σ, the addi- f2
∙γw = ––––––––––––––––––––––– (13)
Partial wind load factor with a tional curvature parameter, τ, has been intro- f1 – –ln(0.98)∙τ
∙
statistical model having an upper limit 1+V –––––––––––––
duced. It determines the boundary: For type II f2

The obvious drawback of the type I Gumbel

distribution lies in the fact that there is no
limit at both tails. Evidently, the probability 2.5
P (v < 0) must equal 0. Similarly, there must Type I
be an upper limit to the wind velocity for Type III
physical reasons even if it cannot be specified RC 1 RC 2 RC 3
straightforwardly. The prediction of very rare
wind speeds is not realistic, unless an upper
2.0
limit is included. F i g u r e 2 shows data from
an exposed site in Northern Germany. They
Partial safety factor gw

1.87
indicate clearly a positive curvature of the dis-
tribution and consequently an upper limit.
VGB PowerTech - Autorenexemplar - © 2011

Such behaviour can be analysed by using a 1.62

generalised Gumbel distribution. It is given by 1.5

∙ ∙
1
v – µ τ– 1.40
1.38
P (≤ v) = exp – ∙f1 – f2 ––––∙  (9)
σ 1.30
1.22
In equation (9), the functions f1 and f2 are
1.0
f1 = Γ(1 + τ) (10) 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.2
4.5 4.7
5.0 5.2
5.5 6.0

f2 = ± ∙Γ (1+2τ) – f12 (11) Reliability index b

Γ designates the gamma-function. In equation Figure 3. Partial safety factor for wind load as a function of the safety index β obtained for the
(11), the positive sign applies to positive τ generalised Gumbel cumulative probability distribution types I and III; with participati-
and vice-versa. Besides the parameters mean on factor αE = – 0.7, variation coefficient V = 0.125, curvature τ = 0.15.

96 VGB PowerTech 9/2011

>>> VGB DIGITAL <<<

0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
2
(—RB )
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Vm, 10
dT · nmin
 esonant response of cooling tower shells to wind gustiness; (a) experimental results for (R/B)2, the ratio of resonant to quasi-static
Figure 4. R
response variance, as a function of normalised wind speed; (b) dynamic factor of the VGB Guideline based on (a).
In the two equations (7) and (13), the coeffi-
cient of variation, V, and the curvature, τ, are
the only distribution parameters required. A
typical value is V = 0.125 and τ = 0.15. In
F i g u r e 3 , the partial factor is shown as a
function of the reliability index β.
As was to be expected, the type III distribution
leads to a much lower wind load factor of
1.3 as compared to the traditional approach
type I with the parameters considered. The
code value of γw = 1.5 is already attained by
assuming a rather small curvature of τ = 0.05
which may be considered as a safe lower limit.
It can be shown that the ratio of the predicted
maximum to the mean for τ = 0.05 would be
(vmax/µ) ≅ 3.0. For the Brocken Mountain,
this would mean a maximum 10 min average
VGB PowerTech - Autorenexemplar - © 2011
wind speed of 115 m/s which is far beyond
recorded values. In conclusion the partial
safety factor is introduced in the 2010-edition
[1] with a value of 1.5 which – as could been
shown – is on the safe side.
Adjustment of the dynamic factor
accounting for gust wind effects
The dynamic factor reflects the effect of reso-
nance on the peak response of a structure. In
2005, the latest EN 1991-1-4 appeared which
introduced a method to calculate the gust
VGB PowerTech 9/2011 97
Amended VGB Guideline on cooling towers
1.20
1.15
1.10
w
1.05
1.00
0 2
0.4 0.5
effect as an amplification factor for wind forc-
es. The dynamic factor is defined in the Ger-
man national annex DIN EN 1991-1-4/NA:
Annex NA.C.2, by
1 + 2 kp · Iv(zs) ∙B² + R²
φ = cd = –––––––––––––––––––– (14)
1 + 2 kpQ· Iv(zs) · B 
where: B², R² – factors of the quasi-static (back-
ground) response variance and resonant re-
sponse variance, σ2Q and σ2R respectively; Iv(zs)
– turbulence intensity at a reference height zs,
kp, kpQ – peak factors for the total and quasi-
static response fluctuations. The code proce-
dure is applicable to structures where the first
mode of vibration dominates the response, and
provided the modal shape has the same sign
everywhere. Obviously, the method cannot be
utilised for cooling towers considering that the
lowest natural frequencies are associated with
ovalling modes having 3 to 5 circumferential
waves. The particular features of the random
shell vibrations have been investigated as early
as 1975 applying theoretical and experimental
methods. The experiments were performed in
two wind tunnels using aeroelastic models and
measuring the shell strains. The tensile meridi-
onal membrane forces were considered as criti-
cal, leading wind effect. The theoretical part
utilised the spectral method. Details are given
in [8]. The findings were
>>> VGB DIGITAL <<<
dT
H
z
4 6 8 10
qb (H)
· 104
(dT · nmin)2
−− Both, the mean and the background mem-
brane force increase proportionate to the
wind velocity pressure.
−− Unlike linear structures, several modes (ap-
proximately the first 10) contribute to the
resonant response.
−− Resonance σR increases moderatly dispro-
portionate to the velocity pressure qm, the
exponent being 1.68.
−− For the ratio of the variances of the resonant
and the background response the following
expression applies:
σ2R/σ2B = R²/B²
π2
= factor · –– (dm/L)2/3 (vm,10/(dm . nmin))2.7
2δ
where δ – damping decrement; L – Daven-
port’s integral turbulence length scale, L =
1200 m; vm,10 – mean wind speed at 10 m
above ground; dm – mean shell diameter; nmin
– lowest natural frequency.
The factor reflects the influence of the tower
shape, in particular the aspect ratio and the
position of the throat. For aspects ratios rang-
ing from 2 to 2.5, an average value of 0.16 is
valid. The throat is positioned between 0.7 · H
and 0.8 · H. F i g u r e 4 ( a ) compares the
theoretical curve with the experimental results
and a good agreement is found. F i g u r e 4 ( b )
 Amended VGB Guideline on cooling towers

50 50

40 40

30 30
Air temperature inside in °C

Temperature gradient in K
20 20

Tinside - Toutside
Tinside

10 10

0 0

-10 -10

-20 -20
-25 -25

-25 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 25

Air temperature outside in °C Average surface temperature change acc. to +15 °C in K

Toutside (Tinside + Toutside) / 2 - 15

Characteristic values acc. [1]

a) Measured temperatures in one year (526,000 values) b) Thermal actions derived from the measured
approx. 15 m above fill system (vapour zone) temperatures shown in a)
(both states: operation and outage)

Figure 5. Measurements of inner and outer air temperatures in the vapour zone.

shows the diagram of the dynamic factor φ −− Operational temperature, decisive in winter When leaving the piping system and mixed
derived from (a). It was introduced to the VGB season, with the natural air draft, the temperature will
Guideline in 1980 [5]. The diagram was re- −− Summer outage. be reduced to about + 35 °C in the spray zone
fined in 1990 by including on the abscissa an on the level of the trickling system and to
Whereas the temperature gradient for summer about + 25 °C in the vapour zone above the
additional geometry parameter, namely the
outage keeps constant since that time, a conse- trickling system, depending on the respective
ratio of the throat diameter to the distance of
quent detailing and adjustment of the other fill system. In the transition zone a linear de-
the throat from the tower top, dT/(2zT). In this
temperature values has continuously improved crease of temperature should be applied. These
manner, it became possible to account for very
the cooling tower design. Beyond that, a re- assumptions have been partly confirmed by
slender tower shapes or those having a lower
valuation of considering the thermal impacts numerical CFD simulations [9] and measure-
aspect ratio. Today, new tower shapes are be-
in the safety and design concept has to be ad- ments [10, 11] and have been agreed with the
ing designed with the throat at the tower top.
justed to the related valid standards. VGB Working Group “Cooling Technology in
In such a case, the abscissa becomes infinity
and the resonance factor as well. This is obvi- Power Plants”.
Operational temperature
ously not realistic, the amended abscissa is not Thus the following operational temperatures
Operation conditions in winter season with
appropriate for such tower shapes. Calcula- TOP for the design of the cooling tower shell
minimum atmospheric temperatures outside
tions of the mode shapes show that the lowest are relevant:
the shell and increased vapour temperatures
natural is associated with lower wave num- −− Uniform temperature change
inside are relevant for the maximum bending
bers. This would indicate a limited increase of in vapour zone
R². However, the effect on the resonance fac- constraints in the shell wall. According to Ger-
man standards, in winter a minimum atmos- ∆TNOP = – 15 K
tor is less pronounced in view of equation
pheric temperature of –24 °C is to be assumed. −− Temperature gradient in vapour zone
(14): an increase of R2/B2 from 0.3 to 0.6 in-
This is a standard value for Germany, which ∆TMOP = + 49 K
creases φ only by about 10 %. Therefore, the
VGB Working Group decided to withdraw the might be precised by a meteorological exper- −− Uniform temperature change
VGB PowerTech - Autorenexemplar - © 2011

refinement for unusual tower shapes and to tise. The atmospheric temperature during con- in spray zone
delete the additional geometry parameter. Of struction of the cooling tower is assumed to be ∆TNOP = – 10 K
course, it may be substituted by results of constant +15 °C. If the climatic conditions dif- −− Temperature gradient in spray zone
more detailed calculations. fer decisively, realistic values again need to be ∆TMOP = + 59 K
evaluated by a meteorological expertise. The
new edition [1] details the regard of differing Then the effective temperature gradient
atmospheric temperatures by setting parame- ∆TMOPeff across the cross-section of the shell
Revision regarding thermal actions wall can be determined using the heat resist-
on cooling towers ters and using formulas to determine the rele-
vant thermal impact. ance values for both internal and external shell
surface Rsi = Rse = 0.04 (m2K)/W and a me-
Initiating with the first German guideline for In the water distribution pipes in general a dium heat conductivity for concrete according
cooling towers in 1970 [3] mainly two relevant maximum water temperature of about + 50 °C to DIN EN ISO 10456. In case of the spray
situations for thermal impacts on cooling tow- can be expected. Higher temperatures have to zone the heat resistance value for internal shell
er shells have been identified as relevant: be looked upon as an accidental situation. surface has to be set to Rsi = 0 (m2K)/W.

98 VGB PowerTech 9/2011

>>> VGB DIGITAL <<<
 Amended VGB Guideline on cooling towers

Wall thickness 0.30 m Wall thickness 0.80 m

+25 °C 25 +35 °C 25

20 20

15 15 2h
10 10 4h
6h
Temperature in °C

Temperature in °C
5 5 8h
0 0 12 h

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20
-24 °C -24 °C
-25 -25
Initial state Initial state
-30 -30
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
12 12
10 10
8 Steady state acc. [1] 8 Steady state acc. [1]
6 6
4 4
Meridional stress in N/mm2

Meridional stress in N/mm2

2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
-8 -8
-10 -10
-12 -12
-14 -14
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

Figure 6. Time-dependent temperature change in the wall’s cross-section and resulting thermal stresses.

Measurements of the inner and outer air tem- strength. The more relevant stresses are the σ = E/[2(1-v)] · αT · ∆TMOPeff
perature in the vapour zone [10, 11], converted maximum tensile stresses of 5.2 N/mm2 in the = 0.2125 · 29.9 K = 6.4 N/mm2
into thermal actions as shown in F i g u r e 5 , vapour zone and 6.2 N/mm2 in the spray zone > 6.2 N/mm2 = σ12 h
are covered by the characteristic values ac- (F i g u r e 6 ). These tensile stresses will be
cording to [1]. Anyway, all temperature de- lower than the analysed linear stress state and Spray zone:
faults have to be confirmed or adjusted by the thus will have been already considered in the d = 80 cm and ∆TMOP = + 59 K
cooling plant designer, especially if deviating design concept: ⇒ ∆TMOPeff = + 47.6 K
from normal operation conditions or in case of R
∆TMOPeff = ––––––––––– ∆TMOP σ = E/[2(1-v)] · αT · ∆TMOPeff
dry and hybrid cooling towers. Rsi + R + Rse
= 0.2125 · 47.6 K = 10.1 N/mm2
In general, temperature effects due to opera- d/λ > 5.2 N/mm2= σ12 h
= –––––––––––– ∆TMOP (15)
tion can be assumed to act axisymmetrically. Rsi + d/λ + Rse
Non-axisymmetric temperature distributions M11 = M22 It is obvious that the thick lower ring beam
might occur, if the fill system is operated sec- d2
VGB PowerTech - Autorenexemplar - © 2011

= EαT∆TMOPeff –––––––– = M (16) performs a larger thermal persistence than the

torwise. As for most customary fill systems
the active and passive sectors rotate continu-
ously over the day, the resulting effects on the
cooling tower shell will be minimised related
to circumference.
Numerical simulations have shown that the ef-
fect of non-axisymmetric temperature distri-
bution can be neglected, as far as the rotating
change period will not exceed 12 hours. The
resulting compressive stresses are higher than
the analysed linear stress state due to the ther-
mal gradient ∆TMOP according to [1], but they
are far away from the concrete compressive
12 (1 – v) thinner wall. Consequently the resulting ten-
sile stresses after operating the fill sector for
σ11 = σ22
12 hours will be far away from the maximum
6M E
= ± ––– = ± ––––––– αT∆TMOPeff (17) stresses due to stationary temperature gradient
d2 2 (1 – v)
acc. [1]. Thus non-axisymmetric effects on the
where Young’s modulus: rigid radial support, which will constraint the
E = 34.000 N/mm2 (C35/45) ovalisation of the shell, will not seriously in-
Poisson’s ratio: v = 0.2 fluence the load bearing capacity of both the
Thermal strain coefficient: support system and the lower ring beam. Ef-
αT = 1.0 · 10-5 fects of non-axisymmetric thermal action on
Vapour zone: the shell are negligible, as former investiga-
d = 30 cm and ∆TMOP = + 49 K tions have demonstrated [12]. Thus, the as-
⇒ ∆TMOPeff = + 29.9 K sumptions of [1] will anyway cover the stress-

VGB PowerTech 9/2011 99

>>> VGB DIGITAL <<<
 Amended VGB Guideline on cooling towers

es due to rotationally changing sectorwise
operation of the fill system.
In the past edition [2] the temperature gradient
both in the vapour and in the spray zone was
equally assumed to ∆TMOP = + 33 K only, ac-
companied by higher combination values than
usual, both for the frequent (ψ1) and for the
quasi-permanent (ψ2) value. This procedure
was pragmatic for civil engineers, but was
somehow misleading for the cooling plant de-
signers. Consequently long and intensive dis-
cussions have been necessary for each project
to balance the understanding of both civil and
mechanical engineers, and finally to convince
the client about the safe and reliable design of
the cooling tower. In order to avoid this misun-
derstanding, the new edition [1] now provides
the physically realistic temperature gradient as
a characteristic value, but offering adequate
safety and combination values. For future
projects this will help to clarify the co-opera-
tion between structural engineer and cooling
plant designer.
Summer and winter outage
For summer outage a temperature state is to be
considered, which is composed of an axisym-
metric uniform temperature change ∆TNS in
the middle surface of the shell and an effective
temperature gradient ∆TMS acting as a cosine-
function over half the circumference. Former
investigations have demonstrated that the non-
axisymmetric effect is negligible [12], so that
the maximum values of ∆TMSeff again can be
assumed to act axisymmetrically and constant
over tower height:
−− Uniform temperature change ture gradients ∆TM for different atmos-
∆TNS = + 22 K
−− Effective temperature gradient already explained in detail.
∆TMSeff = – 25 K
For winter outage only the temperature change
∆TNW in the shell’s middle surface needs to be
regarded:
−− Uniform temperature change Partial safety factor
∆TNW = – 39 K
Safety concept
The new generation of European standards is
VGB PowerTech - Autorenexemplar - © 2011
or alternatively an ultimate load analysis may An equivalent uniform temperature
be performed. change of ∆TN = – 15 K shall be as-
To verify the serviceability limit state, the sumed.
limitation of crack width, displacements and −− Indirectly induced soil settlements B
stresses is focussed. The specific variables in Soil settlements in this sense are induced by
general will be calculated linearly. Regarding foreign effects due to underground mining
cooling tower design only the limitation of the or neighbouring buildings and represent in-
crack width is relevant. In both VGB Guide- direct actions.
lines [1, 2] the characteristic crack width wk is −− Seismic actions AE and accidental actions A
limited to: Seismic actions or accidental actions may
−− Shell: wk ≤ 0.20 mm be derived from design values. The damp-
−− Columns and foundation: wk ≤ 0.30 mm ing coefficient can be set to D = 0.05 and
−− Basin and fill the importance factor γI is to be determined
support structure: wk ≤ 0.15 mm in agreement with the power company ac-
cording to DIN EN 1998-1.
In addition to the verifications of the different
design limit states a buckling safety of γB ≥ 5 Referring to DIN EN 1990 and DIN EN
is required with respect to characteristic val- 1992-1-1 different design situations need to be
ues for the combination of actions G + We + analysed for the different design limit states.
Wi (dead load G, external wind pressure We Accordingly, appropriate safety factors and
and internal suction Wi). The resulting design combination values for the actions Fd = Fk/γF
procedure is appropriate to determine the wall as well as the partial safety factors for the ma-
thickness distribution of the shell. terial capacities Rd have been defined ( Ta -
b l e s 1 and 2 ).
Regarding the defined design situations, char-
acteristic values Fk for the essential actions are Considering these safety factors and combina-
to be considered: tion values the verification of ultimate limit
−− Dead load G state results in relevant combinations of ac-
The specific weight of reinforced con- tions:
crete is assumed to be 25 kN/m3. −− Persistent and transient design situation:
−− Wind load W ∑ γG,j · Gk,j + γQ,1 · Qk,1
The wind load W as a quasi-static load j≥1
+ ∑ γQ,i · ψ0,1 · Qk,i (18)
is separated into external pressure We
i>1
and internal suction Wi.
−− Accidental design situation:
−− Temperature T
The thermal actions consist of uniform ∑ Gk,j + A + ψ1,1 · Qk,1
j≥1
temperature changes ∆TN and tempera- + ∑ ψ2,i + Qk,i (19)
i>1
pheric and operational conditions, as −− Earthquake (seismic action):
−− Shrinkage S ∑ Gk,j + AE + ∑ ψ2,i · Qk,i (20)
j≥1 i≥1
Table 1. Partial safety factors γF (γG, γQ) and combination values ψi for actions
on cooling tower shells.
Combination value
Action
γG1 γQ1 ψ0 ψ1 ψ2
G 1.00/1.35 - - - -
W (We,Wi) - 0/1.50 0.6 0.5 0
TOP - 0/1.502 03 0.7 0.5
T S
- 0/1.50 2
03
0.5 0

based on a partial safety concept to verify ul- TW - 0/1.502 03 0,5 0

timate limit states (ULS) and serviceability
B - 0/1.502 1.0 1.0 1.0
limit states (SLS). The verification of ultimate
limit states is necessary to avoid structural S - 0/1.502 1.0 1.0 1.0
1
failure, whereas the verification of servicea- Favourable/unfavourable effects
2
In case of linear-elastic analysis: γQ = 0/1.00
bility limit states should guarantee durability 3
According to practical experience
and long-term availability.
To verify the ultimate limit state, both linear Table 2. Safety factors γR, γc, γs for material capacities.
and non-linear analysis methods may be ap-
plied. Using linear analysis, a cross-section Concrete Reinforcement System resistance
Design situation
design with stress resultants due to nominal γc γs γR
load cases will quantify the reinforcement. Persistent and transient 1.50 1.15 1.30
Such a cross-section design is also possible
Accidental/earthquake 1.30 1.00 1.10
using non-linearly calculated stress resultants,

100 VGB PowerTech 9/2011

>>> VGB DIGITAL <<<
 Amended VGB Guideline on cooling towers

Table 3. Relevant ultimate and serviceability limit states acc. [1, 2]. towers, a simulation of the crack-evolution in
the shell is to be carried out early in the design
VGB 2005 [2] VGB 2010 [1]
phase [17]. The relevant load combinations
ULS
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
γG G + 1.60 W γG G + 1.50 W under the dominant actions dead load G, wind
Ed ≤ Rd (fy/1.15) Ed ≤ Rd (fy/1.15)
γG G + 0.96 W + γQ T γG G + 0.90 W + γQ T load W and temperature T are to be investi-
1.00 TOP 0.50 TOP gated by an incremental-iterative procedure by

∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
SLS G + 0.50 W + G + 0.50 W +
wk G+ 1.00 TOP ≤ lim wk wk G+ 0.70 TOP ≤ lim wk means of an amplification factor λ. According
G+ 0.50 TS G+ 0.50 TS to [1] the following load combinations need to
G+ 1.00 TW G+ 0.50 TW
be investigated
T = TOP, TS, TW (TOP different for VGB 2005 [2] and VGB 2010 [1])
γG = 1.00 (favourable)/1.35 (unfavourable) λ (γG G + 1.50 T + 0.90 W) λu ≥ γR = 1.3,
γQ = 1.00 for linear analysis
γQ = 1.50 for non-linear analysis with global safety factor γR = 1.30 for system resistance
VGB 2010 [1], 3.3.2: γQ = 0 for linear analysis of general regions of the shell λ (γG G + 1.50 W) λu ≥ γR = 1.3.

For most parts of the shell, the dead load G

For serviceability limit state (limitation of
crack width) only one combination of actions
need to be considered:
– Frequent combination:
∑ Gk,j + ψ1,1 · Qk,1 + ∑ ψ2,i · Qk,i
j≥1 i>1
The consideration of the dominant actions
dead load G, wind load W and temperature T
in equations (18) and (21) results in the rele-
vant design situations of the ultimate limit
state and the serviceability limit state shown
in Ta b l e 3 .
Already in the past it has been shown by nu-
merous ultimate load studies [13, 14] that in
case of strong wind action as the leading load
case the thermal effects can be totally neglect-
ed when approaching the ultimate load (struc-
tural failure). This was considered in [2] by
introducing the combination value ψ0 = 0 for
all thermal load cases.
In the general regions of the shell, the cross-
section performs sufficient deformability and
rotation capacity, so that the permission of
DIN EN 1992-1-1 to set γQ = 0 can be applied.
This is not valid for the boundaries of the
shell, like the upper and lower ring beam and will act favourably, thus need to be multiplied
the surroundings of the flue gas openings. Es- with a safety factor γG = 1.0. But local com-
pecially for the thick lower ring beam, where ponents might deviate, for example the vicin-
the rotation capacity is restricted because of ity of flue gas openings or the lower ring beam
compressive stresses due to the shell’s weight between the radial columns. Here both combi-
(21) and because of the large shell thickness, edge nations with safety factor γG = 1.0 respective-
effects will enforce additional circumferential ly 1.35 need to be applied.
stress resultants [12]. They will only be limit-
ed, if the shell has cracked due to thermal
Consequences of the amendments
bending moments. In between, this might en-
force great crack-widths and yielding of rein-
forcement in the ring beam. To identify the consequences of both changes
in load assumptions and combination values, a
Both [1, 2] offer non-linear analysis methods representative cooling tower shell has been
as an alternative to the linear structural analy- comparatively analysed with the VGB Edi-
sis. Using non-linear reinforced concrete tions [1] and [2]. The main dimensions have
models two concepts are possible: a cross- been taken from the recently constructed natu-
section design or an ultimate load design. In ral draft cooling tower of unit 4 of the Datteln
the second case a global safety factor γR = power plant (Germany), but ignoring all spe-
1.30 for persistent and transient design situa- cial characteristics of the specific site, like
tions respectively γR = 1.10 for accidental de- non-homogeneous soil behaviour, acid resist-
sign situations including seismic actions has ant concrete, flue gas inflow and interference
to be introduced (Table 2), which represents effects, as given in detail in [18]. These simpli-
the system resistance. More details can be fied, but representative assumptions are sum-
found in [15] and [16]. marised in F i g u r e 7 .
To evaluate the ultimate state safety and to The 178 m high shell is composed out of two
simulate the life-cycle behaviour of cooling hyperbolic shells of revolution, stiffened by a

1.69
0.20 0.30
Ø 74.180 m 1.19
178.100 0.10
0.30 m
Upper ring beam R = 37.090 m
0.20 m 178.10 m
171.000
1.20

176.60 m
0.30

Ø 71.216 m
Wall thickness 118.444

R = 35.500 m
VGB PowerTech - Autorenexemplar - © 2011

0.30

66.000
0.20 m
16.699 °
0.23 m 60.000
Columns 0.25
1.10
R = 61.00 m Wall of water basin
25.500 11 m
0.23 m 0.60 0.732
1.95 2.068
0.858 3.005 1.487 -1.10
10.444 Ø 114.388 m
Ring foundation
0.75 0.75

-1.85
1.00 m
1.50

R = 58.332 m
-1.85 R = 60.882 m -2.60
R = 63.682 m
Ø 121.764 m 5.35

Figure 7. D
 imensions of representative cooling tower shell with axisymmetric geometry and boundary conditions; concrete quality of foundation
C30/37; concrete quality of columns and shell wall C35/45; concrete cover of shell wall 35 mm; soil stiffness moduli ks,stat = 10 MN/m3
and ks,dyn = 30 MN/m3; interference factor FI = 1.0 (solist); pressure distribution curve K1.1; terrain category II.

VGB PowerTech 9/2011 101

>>> VGB DIGITAL <<<
 Amended VGB Guideline on cooling towers

Figure 8. Comparison of [1] and [2] for the

180 ULS combination with wind load W
as leading load, considering the
German wind zones 1 to 4.
G +1.5 W acc. [1]
160 lower ring with max. 1.00 m thickness and a U-shaped ring beam on
G +1.6 W acc. [2]
top (Figure 7). The shell is settled on radial supports and a ring founda-
tion. Only the dominant loads G, W and T will be considered, both in
140 ultimate limit state ULS and serviceability limit state SLS according
to [1] and [2]. The temperature gradient ∆TMOP = +59 K in the spray
zone is not considered in this representative example, as the extension
120 of the zone would depend on the specific fill system.
F i g u r e 8 shows the results comparing the calculated meridional
Wind zone 1
100 reinforcement only for the leading variable action W in ULS according
2
to [1] and [2] for the different wind zones 1 to 4 in Germany. The dif-
3
ferences in both VGB Revisions are small, as the smaller safety factor
Level in m

4 for wind loading is partly compensated by the larger dynamic ampli-

80
fication factor and further influenced by the Young’s modulus accord-
ing to DIN EN 1992-1-1, which is larger than to be considered accord-
60 ing to DIN 1045-1.
F i g u r e s 9 and 1 0 show the reinforcement-ratios for inner and
outer layers, assumed as symmetrical, with respect to ULS- and SLS-
40 design and minimum reinforcement requirements. The changes in re-
inforcement are relatively small, though the treatment of thermal
stresses in [1] now differs in comparison to [2]. Obviously the larger
20 characteristic value for ∆TMOP is compensated by the reduced combi-
nation values ψ1,1 and ψ2,1. Though the single results of the different
limit states might differ more significantly, for example due to the
0 missing thermal action as leading load in the ULS, these differences
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
2
are covered by other load combinations or limit states. Thus, finally
Meridional direction: as, req per layer in cm /m
the established overall safety level of [2] again is confirmed by [1].

180 180

160 160
ULS acc. [1] ULS acc. [1]

SLS acc. [2] SLS acc. [2]

140 140
ULS and SLS acc. [1] ULS and SLS acc. [1]

ULS acc. [2] ULS acc. [2]

120 120
SLS acc. [2] SLS acc. [2]

ULS and SLS acc. [2] ULS and SLS acc. [2]
100 100
as, min acc. [1], 3.3.5.1 as, min acc. [1], 3.3.5.1
Level in m

Level in m

as, min acc. [1], 3.4.1.2 as, min acc. [1], 3.4.1.2
80 80

60 60
VGB PowerTech - Autorenexemplar - © 2011

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Circumferential direction: as, req per layer in cm2/m 2

Meridional direction: as, req per layer in cm /m

Figure 9. R
 equired circumferential reinforcement in case Figure 10. Required meridional reinforcement in case
of German wind zone 2. of German wind zone 2.

102 VGB PowerTech 9/2011

>>> VGB DIGITAL <<<

Additionally, the minimum reinforcement ra-
tio according to VGB Guideline [1], 3.4.1.2, is
considered in Figures 9 and 10. It is much
smaller than the minimum reinforcement ac-
cording to VGB Guideline [1], 3.3.5.1, re-
quested to meet tensile stresses due to thermal
restraints (in circumferential direction due to
membrane restraints in case of early thermal
contraction in the state of construction; in me-
ridional direction due to thermal bending re-
straint during operation). The results clearly
demonstrate that the definition of minimum
reinforcement according to [1], 3.4.1.2, which
especially should cover bending effects due to
wind induced vibrations, will never be rele-
vant in comparison to the higher minimum
reinforcement to cover thermal restraint
stresses.
The design and proof of a representative cool-
ing tower project has shown that both the rein-
forcement quantity in circumferential and in
meridional direction will not drastically
change. This coincides with the experience
that German cooling towers neither suffer any
collapse nor any other serious ultimate limit
failure in the past. In general, the total quan-
tity of reinforcement according to old [2] and
new guideline [1] will not differ significantly.
Thus the requested appropriateness of the
cooling tower design concept with the
EUROCODE design philosophy will not seri-
ously influence the level of safety and reliabil-
ity. Nevertheless the revision has been neces-
sary to adjust the cooling tower design to the
obligatory EUROCODE-requirements.
VGB PowerTech - Autorenexemplar - © 2011
BUSINESS
N E T W O R K
VGB PowerTech 9/2011 103
www.e-world-2012.com
Amended VGB Guideline on cooling towers
References
[ 1] VGB-R 610e: Structural Design of Cooling
Towers, Edition 2010 (German version al-
ready available, English version in prepara-
tion).
[ 2] VGB-R 610e: Structural Design of Cooling
Towers, Completely revised Edition 2005.
[ 3] Vereinigung Industrielle Kraftwirtschaft
(VIK), Technischer Leitfaden zum Bestellen
von Kühltürmen (Nachtrag), Energieberatung
GmbH Essen, 1970.
[ 4] VGB-R 610e: Structural Design of Cooling
Towers, Edition 1979.
[ 5] VGB-R 610e: Structural Design of Cooling
Towers, Edition 1980.
[ 6] Niemann, H.J., Hölscher, N., and Meiswinkel,
R.: A probabilistic approach for the determi-
nation of extreme actions with respect to the
structural design. Proceedings of ICAPP
2007, Nice, France, May 13 –18, 2007.
[ 7] Diburg, S., Hölscher, N., Meiswinkel, R., Nie-
mann, H.-J., and Rosenhauer, W.: Verwen-
dung von PROGUMBEL zur Vorhersage ext-
remer Einwirkungen im Kraftwerksbau. Jah-
restagung Kerntechnik, 2010.
[ 8] Niemann, H.J., and Ruhwedel, J.: Statische
und dynamische Beanspruchungen von Na-
turzugkühltürmen bei Einzel- und Gruppen-
anordnung. Schriftenreihe Konstruktiver In-
genieurbau Berichte, Heft 35/36, Vulkan
Verlag, Essen, 1981.
[ 9] Kroeger, D.G., and Reuter, H.C.R.: A new
two-dimensional CFD model to predict the
performance of natural draft wet-cooling tow-
ers packed with trickle or splash fills. Proc.
14th Int. Heat Transfer Conference IHTC-14,
Washington D.C., USA, 2010.
[10] Köpper, H.-D., Blömeke, P., Meyer, J., and
Busch, D.: Design and Realisation of Cooling
Tower Monitoring. 5th International Sympo-
>>> VGB DIGITAL <<<
sium on Natural-Draught Cooling Towers,
Istanbul, 207 – 21, 2004.
[11] Pfister, T., Lehnen, D., Bockhold, J., and Mey-
er, J.: Grundlagen des Lebensdauermanage-
ments im Kraftwerksbau. Beton- und Stahl-
betonbau 105, 463 – 470, 2010.
[12] Harte, R., and Rudolph, W.: Erfahrungen bei
Berechnung und Bauausführung des Natur-
zugkühlturms des Heizkraftwerks Herne IV.
Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 88, 33-40, 1993.
[13] Eckstein, U., Krätzig, W.B., Meiswinkel, R.,
and Wittek, U.: Anwendung nichtlinearer
Tragwerksanalysen für die Umrüstung beste-
hender Kühltürme. Bauingenieur 72, 263-
269, 1997.
[14] Bender, M., Bockhold, J., Meyer, J., and Mark,
P.: Zum Einfluß der Temperatur auf die Be-
messung von Kühlturmschalen aus Stahlbe-
ton. Bautechnik 11, 755–763, 2005.
[15] Wittek, U., and Meiswinkel, R.: Structural
safety requirements for the ultimate load de-
sign of RC plates and shells. 4th Int. Symp.
on Computation of Shells and Spatial Struc-
tures IASS-IACM, Chania-Crete, Greece,
2000.
[16] Harte, R., Lenz, J., and Meiswinkel, R.: State-
of-the-art of cooling tower design in Germa-
ny. In: Zingoni, A. (editor): Proc. 3rd Int.
Conf. SEMC 2007, Cape Town, South Africa,
Millpress Science Publishers, 45-46 (CD
118-123), 2007.
[17] Harte, R., Krätzig, W.B., Noh, S.-Y., and Pe­
tryna, Y.: On progressive damage phenomena
of structures. Computational Mechanics 25,
404-412, 2000.
[18] Andres, M., and Wörmann, R.: Der neue Na-
turzugkühlturm im E.ON-Steinkohlenkraft-
werk Datteln. In: W. Wagner (Hrsg.): Bausta-
tik – Baupraxis 10, 1-12, Institut für Bausta-
tik, Universität Karlsruhe, 17.-18. März 2008.
 □
7. - 9 . 2 . 2 0 1 2
Essen /Germany
 VGB PowerTech
International Journal for Electricity and Heat Generation
600
K 43 43600
Klum
Vo e 85/2005 ·
ISSN 14
Seite 1
· ISSN 1435-3199 35-319
Volume 87/2007
10:07 Uhr
U 1+4_PT7-07.q
xd 18.07.2007 9

199 K 4360
35-3 0
SN 14
7 · IS

nologien
/200
me 87

Innovative Tech
Volu

se rb ehandlung
für die Was de Lösung
ung die passen
Für jede Anwend

:
logie die
chno r
uer Te mine fü ng
Mit ne ende A dlu
ild ehan
filmb lwasserb
Kesse Schwerpu
Instandh nktthema:
Focus: Furnaces, in Kraftwaltung
and erken
Steam Generators
Steam Turbines Further
t Wo
rk Coal-FireDevelopments in
fety a Optimisation of Technolo d Power Plant
s: Sa
Focu - Operating Cost
gy
Te c h
Coal r- through CDM and
JI Hydro Po
Clean ies – Inte ies Competit wer in a
nolog al Activit ive Marke
nati o n Performance of a t
ower 900 MW Supercritica
l Thermal
ired P lating Waste in Utilisation of
ass-f u Steam Turbine a Power
Biom with Circ 360
0 Plant
nt d
PlaAngebotedanBProdu
e kten und K4
Material
n. tte für Unser vielfältiges idis
Ausrüstungen, F lu zt durch fundiertes
tech- Developments of for High VoDe velopmen
ange
sende Produktpale ergän
ts
Power Pl Capa
Wir bieten eine umfas Wasser und liefern maß- senden
eit f und einen umfas Fluidised Bed lume
ci83ty/2003 ·
ange
ums nisches Know-how
narb alle Probleme rund
tion
liche
gen, diervperfek t auf Ihre
Kundenservice,
deckt unterschied
om Gasification ants ISSN
mme al klein Opera ences fr Farms
geschneiderte Lösun rupptimmt Xe on sind: iel in den 1435-3
te ab, zum Beisp 19
Zusa
sse abges Anwendungsgebie Stahlindustrie, Raffin
erien 9
speziellen Proze nK
ri
hat m
st- Pro-
Expe ore Wind
ysse Ge rü
er, Kühl- und erke,
Jede
Th
nzwass Branchen Kraftw
t e
erkeg von Zusat
n ha wi
Aufbeafreitun unge fgab r für Heizu
en ngs- Industrie, chemische n in K 43600
Explosion Protectio 1435-3199
Kr tw e AuWasse
che
Offsh
stleist lwass
Kesse er, und petroc hemis nkeindustrie,
g von asser, dien mplex oder ranfiltra- smittel- und Geträ
altun zessw f
er
Basis ik odMemb
sis o ISSN l
Leben
andh Ob n, Swim g, ko Pools
ming- echn Indus trie, 199 05 · -coa
Hard
Volumee of
ung. igun
fahranlage
14 aly the Cas
r Inst el lte sser.
Rein ngst undstAbwa
Anlagenmanagem
ent. 35-3 85/20
SN An
In de Er he ue ru
asser
e sc , Trinkw
Fe ge
techni nlagen
· ISage
hr
dtionsa m m en
es
d
30 Ja g un
Nord Internation
r Tub,
sa se re K 4360
05am
über un un rf zu rn un
rung rnisier Be da 0D aliga al Jo 0
ratorocryl
Isolie Mode n ge ld for Ele
bau, Ih re n Ih ne
85/2 rreva ctricity urnal
p, oP3-fer
ing, ®
neer fü r ise n
a
®
and He
wie
Engi
, sp ez
ie ll
W ir be we
Großen
.
P3-cetamine, P3-fer rocid , P3-fer
Vo
rolin
lu
®
E v
me, P3-ferrofloc®

International Journ
al
very
at To Publica
at Gene
ration
ecoation
.
pl et te ke te wie im rolix.co, m
®
Heat Gener tio
ko m einen , P3-fer roflame for Electricity and at R VGB Po n of
®
pa rofos
®
rupp ition
un gs P3-fer
P3-ferrocor , P3-fer s He
®
st le ist im Kl senk l Ed
, P3-ferrosolf , werTech
®
Di en eit – motec @th®ys
rvon h Ga ationa www.v e.V.
Leist
ungs
fähigkP3-os
e un
s: xe PublicFlueof
ation Inte rn gb .org
n
aktie
ren Si VGB PowerTech
e.V. International Editio
Kont at ion
orf, Germany nal ener www.vgb.org
• Henkelstraße 67
• 40191 Düsseld l Jour eat G
Water Treatment Email: water.treatmen ationa and H
t@henkel.com
Henkel KGaA, TI 211 798 22 62 • Intern ectricity
9190 • Fax +49
Phone +49 211 797 www.henkel-water.co
m for El
n of V.
icatio Tech e.
Publ er Internati
Pow onal Ed
VGB gb.org ition
.v
n www
ervo
ru an pp X ce
senK rform
Thys Plant Pe p
Powe
ring
sen Krup Topic:
Thys Hydro
-powe

N!*
GmbH
rupp
Xervon r

IGE
senK 2
Thys Landwehr n
r he
An de Gelsenkirc -0
3 9454 90
: Neue
ema ien
4588
Proze Wege in de
0209 -3

Schwerpunktthema:
54
ktth
on
Telef 09 94
ax 02
pun e Energ Informssleit- und r
Telef

wer Kernenergie
.de
Sch euerbar
xervon
rupp ationst
ysse
nk
ays echnik
Ern
.th
www
thw lts
2004: Operating Resu ts Develo
n Pa Oxida pment of th
roge rios of Nuclear Power Plan
Hyd Scena Steamtion Layer o e
and – ns t Turbin n
e Vane a
rk II onditio European Power Plan
swe Technology for Live-c
Kop vailing Cn Conditycle Monito
e
Pr Desig the Global Market ion Eva rin
and luation g/
ank ark Water Treatment Hg-Rü
w B ind P SCR-K ckhaltung im
Arklohore W in Power Plant atalysa
Offs r e Applications torbett
W Directiv
ate
EU-
The mework n
Distributed Generation
Fra and System Operatio Interna n
for Ele tional Jour ditio
al E
ctricity nal tion
ft E IT
and He rna
rkra Inte
LT W at Ge
WE Publica neratio
it VGB Po tion of n
igke we
rläss s- www. rTe
vgb.o ch e.V.
Zuve kompre r on rg
INI
NG
auf de al ene
rati
o es chdruck Stellrä h ourn Heat G
tz, w o d rc al J
insa UER H ln un . Dadu tion y and al
m E
BA fe n ra- rna it International Journ
rt zu efern Sc hau passe G ene Inte lectric
E for Electricity and
Heat Generation
li ie
m d sen an
zu die for
So
ie, u und of
tion ech e
.V.
nis fen der lica
nerg erhält ig lau re ich - Pub Powe rg
rT Publication of n
Be International Editio


sv äß pro VGB PowerTech
e.V.
ung leichm g im
e K om VGB .vgb.o
n w
en g m lösu ei kein ww www.vgb.org Interna
tional
b le a b e
e Pro si ch d re n.d Editio
n
rt d o
eide en un rnen. mp
ress
ch le
g su ennen r-ko
k aue sore
n.de
uns w.b pres
ww uer-k
om
@ba
info
67,
49-1
·7 80

Please copy >>> fill in and return by mail or fax

9·89
x +4
, Fa

Yes, I would like order a subscription of VGB PowerTech. Name, First Name
The current price is Euro 275.– plus postage and VAT.
Unless terminated with a notice period of one month to Street
the end of the year, this subscription will be extended for
a further year in each case. Postal Code City Country

Phone/Fax

Date 1st Signature

Return by fax or mail or in business envelope with window to
Cancellation: This order may be cancelled within 14 days. A notice must be
VGB PowerTech Service GmbH sent to to VGB PowerTech Service GmbH within this period. The deadline
Fax No. +49 201 8128-302 will be observed by due mailing. I agree to the terms with my 2nd signature.

Date 2nd Signature

 VGB PowerTech
The generation of electricity and the disposal of heat is in all parts of the world a central
topic of technology, economy, politics and daily live. Experts are responsible for the
construction and operation of power plants, their development and monitoring as well
as for various tasks in connection with service and management.

The technical journal VGB PowerTech is a competent and internationally accepted

publication for power plant engineering. It appears annually with 11 bilingual issues
(German/English). VGB PowerTech informs with technical/scientific papers and
up-to-date news on all important questions of electricity- and heat generation.

Topics: development, planning, construction and operation of power plants under

special consideration of

– Operation and plant safety,

– Economic efficiency,
– Environmental compatibility,
– Research and development and application of new technologies,
– Competitiveness of different technologies and
– Legal aspects.

VGB PowerTech appears with VGB PowerTech Service GmbH, publishing house of
technical-scientific publications.

VGB PowerTech e.V., the European technical association, is the publisher.

Your contact at VGB PowerTech Service GmbH,

Gregor Scharpey, Phone: +49 201 8128-271, E-Mail: mark@vgb.org

VGB PowerTech Service GmbH

P.O. Box 10 39 32
45039 Essen
ALLEMAGNE

PT
 VGB Po­wer­Tech-DVD
Mo­re than 12,000 digitalised pa­ges with data and expertise
(incl. se­arch func­ti­on for all do­cu­ments)


Ple­ase fill in and re­turn by mail or fax
I would li­ke to or­der the VGB Po­wer­Tech-DVD
1990 to 2010 (sin­gle user li­cen­se).
Na­me, First Na­me
Eu­ro  950.–* (Subs­cri­ber of VGB Po­wer­Tech Jour­nal 1)
Eu­ro 1950.–* (Non-subs­cri­ber of VGB Po­wer­Tech Jour­nal 2)
Street
Plus postage, Germany Euro 7.50 and VAT
Net­work li­cen­se (cor­po­ra­te li­cen­se), VGB mem­bers’
edi­ti­on (In­fo­Ex­pert) and edu­ca­ti­on li­cen­se on re­quest Pos­tal Co­de Ci­ty Count­ry
(pho­ne: +49 201 8128-200).
* Plus VAT. Pho­ne/Fax
Annual update 1) Euro 150.–; 2) Euro 350.–
The update has to be ordered annually. Da­te 1st Sig­na­tu­re

Re­turn by fax or in business envelope with window to Can­cel­la­ti­on: This or­der may be can­cel­led wi­thin 14 days. A no­ti­ce must be
sent to to VGB Po­wer­Tech Ser­vice GmbH wi­thin this pe­ri­od. The deadline will
VGB Po­wer­Tech Ser­vice GmbH be observed by due mailing. I ag­ree to the terms with my 2nd sig­na­tu­re.
Fax No. +49 201 8128-329
In­fo­Ex­pert Da­te 2nd Sig­na­tu­re
 VGB Po­wer­Tech – www.vgb.org
The generation of electricity and the disposal of heat is in all parts of the world a central
topic of technology, economy, politics and daily live. Experts are responsible for the
construction and operation of power plants, their development and monitoring as well
as for various tasks in connection with service and management.
The technical journal VGB PowerTech is a competent and internationally accepted
publication for power plant engineering. It appears with 11 bilingual issues
(German/English) annually. VGB PowerTech informs with technical/scientific papers and
up-to-date news on all important questions of electricity and heat generation.
VGB PowerTech appears with VGB PowerTech Service GmbH, publishing house of
technical-scientific publications.
VGB PowerTech e.V., the German and European technical association, is the publisher.

VGB PowerTech DVD 1990 to 2010:

Digitalised technical papers of VGB Kraftwerkstechnik and VGB PowerTech.
You find the competent technical know-how from 21 years on more than 12,000 pages
VGB Kraftwerkstechnik (German issues until 2000) and the international technical
journal VGB PowerTech (as of 2001) with:
– More than 2300 technical papers,
– All documents in PDF-format (up to the year 2000 for technical reasons as b/w scan),
– Convenient search function in all papers as full-text search and/or deliberate search
for authors and documents titles,
– Navigate quickly to the desired papers with a few mouse clicks.
The VGB PowerTech-DVD is available as single license or multi-user license for
companies, research institutions and authorities.
The single license can be ordered by form and by post/fax or use our online shop
under www.vgb.org.
A quotation for a multi-user license is made on demand.
You can bring up to date your DVD annually with the VGB PowerTech update.
The update has to be ordered annually.

Your contact at VGB PowerTech Service GmbH,

Jürgen Zimander, Phone: +49 201 8128-200, E-Mail: mark@vgb.org

VGB Po­wer­Tech Ser­vice GmbH

P.O. Box 10 39 32
45039 Es­sen
AL­LE­MAG­NE

In­fo­Ex­pert

View publication stats