Study The Effects of Seismic and Wind Loads On Hyperbolic Cooling Tower

TO STUDY THE EFFECT OF SEISMIC AND WIND LOADS ON
HYPERBOLIC COOLING TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND

RCC SHELL THICKNESS
DISSERTATION:
Submitted to Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum
In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
By:
PRASHANTH .N
USN: 1GC11CSE05
Under the Guidance of:
SAYEED SULAIMAN
Assistant Professor
Dept of Civil Engineering, G.C.E,
Ramanagaram-571511
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

GHOUSIA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
RAMANAGARAM-571511
2012-2013
SYNOPSIS:
Natural draught cooling towers are very common in modern day thermal and nuclear power
stations. These towers with very small shell thickness are exceptional structures by their
sheer size and sensitivity to horizontal loads. This paper deals with to study the effect of
seismic and wind loads on hyperbolic cooling of varying dimensions and rcc shell thickness.
For the purpose of comparison an existing cooling tower is consider as reference, (BTPS,
Karnataka).For other models the dimensions and rcc shell thickness is varied with respect to
reference cooling tower.
Bellary thermal power station is a power generating unit near kudithini village in Bellary
taluk, Bellary district and karnataka state. Basic wind speed is 39 m/sec, risk co-efficient
factor K1 shall be taken as 1.06, terrain category shall be 2 and corresponding values shall be
taken for K2, risk co-efficient factor K3 shall be taken as 1.0. The seismic zone is zone III,
importance factor (I) is 1.5.
The boundary condition of the cooling tower has been top end free and bottom end is fixed.
The material properties of the cooling tower have young modulus 31GPa, Poisson Ratio 0.15
and density of RCC 25 Kg/m3. These cooling towers have been analyzed for seismic & wind
loads using Finite Element Analysis (ANSYS v.10). The seismic load will be carried out for
0.5g, 0.6g& 0.7g in accordance with IS: 1893 (part 1)-2002 and by modal analysis and wind
loads on these cooling towers have been calculated in the form of pressures by using the
design wind pressure coefficients as given in IS: 11504-1985 code along with the design
wind pressures at different levels as per IS: 875 (Part 3) - 1987 code. The analysis has been
carried out using 8-noded 93 Shell Element.
The out come & result are Max Deflection, Max Principal Stress & Strain, Max Von mises
Stress & Strain are mapped & tabulated.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This satisfaction and euphoria that accompany the successful completion of any task would
be but incomplete without mentioning the names of the people who made it possible, whose
constant guidance and encouragement crowned the efforts with success.
I convey my regard to SAYEED SULAIMAN, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, GCE, for his valuable insights and suggestions offered during the course of the
Project work.
I express my deep gratitude to Dr. MOHAMED ILYAS ANJUM, Vice principal, Prof. &
HOD, Department of Civil Engineering, GCE for providing support and encouragement.
I express my thanks to Dr. MOHAMED HANEEF, Principal, for providing congenial
atmosphere to work in.
I express my thanks to PRAKASH, Chief Engineer, and KPCL for providing data to our
Project work.
I express my thanks to KIMDHASAIAH, Executive Engineer, and KPCL for helping to our
project work.
I express my thanks to Sunil Reddy for Guidance of ANSYS Software to our project work.
I also thank full to our Family and Friends. Their Constant faith in our sincerity has helped
us to stay confident in the entire course of the project.
I thank all the Teaching Staff, Supporting Staff who have directly or indirectly helped us in
successful completion of our project work.
PRASHANTH N
CONTENTS:
Abstract
List of Tables
iv
List of Figures
Abbreviations
viii
CHAPTER-I: INTRODUCTION OF COOLING TOWER

1.1 General Introduction
1.2 Types of cooling tower
1.3 Component of natural draft cooling tower
1.4 Cooling tower materials
1.5 IS11504-1985 Recommendation
1.6 Advantage of cooling tower
1.7 Details of Bellary thermal power plant
1.8 Objective
1.9 Origination of Thesis
CHAPTER-II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
10
2.2 Review of hyperbolic cooling tower
10-13
CHAPTER-III: ANALYSIS OF RCC SHELL

3.1 General Introduction
14
3.2 Reinforced Concrete Thin Shell Structure
15
3.3 Classification of Shell
17
CHAPTER-IV: INTRODUCTION TO FEM PACKAGE USED ANSYS

4.1 FEA Program
18
4.2 Materials Models
20
4.3 Element Library
20
4.4 Procedure Library
21
4.5 FEA Program
22
ii
CHAPTER-V: ELEMENT USED FOR ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT

5.1 Shell 93: Description
26
5.2 Shell 93: Input Data
26
5.3 Shell 93: Input Summary
28
5.4 Shell 93: Assumption & Restriction
29
CHAPTER-VI: ANALYSIS PROCEDURE & CALCULATIONS

6.1 Description of Geometry of cooling tower
30
6.2 Earthquake forces
35
6.3 Wind load
40
6.4 Analysis steps involved in finite Element Modeling
49
CHAPTER-VII: TABULATION AND RESULTS

7.1 Static analysis
52
7.2 Modal analysis
55
7.3 Response spectrum analysis
57
7.4 Wind analysis
63
CHAPTER-VIII: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
66
CHAPTER-IX: RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE STUDIES
67
REFERENCES
68
APPENDIX A- JOURNAL PAPER

APPENDIX B- Geometrical drawing of BTPS
APPENDIX C- IS Codes
1. IS: 11504:1985., Criteria for structural design of reinforced concrete natural draught
cooling tower, New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian standards.
2. IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 Criteria for earthquake resistant design structure.
3. IS: 875 (Part3):1987. Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake loads)
for buildings and structures. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
iii
LIST OF TABLES:
Table 5.1: Shell 93 real constants
28
Table 6.1: Geometric details of hyperbolic cooling tower
31
Table 6.2: Input geometry values to create model in ANSYS for CT1
32
33
34
Table 6.5: Design spectrum for 0.5g
37
38
39
Table 6.8: Result of variation hourly mean wind speed with height for CT1
41
42
42
Table 6.11: Gust factor calculation result for CT1
45
Table 6.12: ANSYS input wind pressure for CT1
45
46
Table 6.14: ANSYS input wind pressure for CT
47
48
Table 6.16: ANSYS input wind pressure for CT3
48
Table 7.1: Static analysis results
55
Table7.2: Modal analysis results
57
Table 7.3: Response spectrum analysis result for 0.5g
59
61
63
Table 7.4: Wind load analysis results
65
iv
LIST OF FIGURES:
Fig1.1: Group of cooling towers
Fig1.2: Historical development of cooling tower
Fig1.3: Cross flow of cooling tower
Fig1.4: Counter flow of cooling tower
Fig1.5: Fabrication of supporting columns
Fig1.6: climbing construction of shell
Fig1.7: Location of BTPS
Fig3.1: Aircraft hangar, Orly, France
15
Fig4.1: Components of general purpose finite element analysis program
19
Fig4.2: ANSYS graphical user interface
23
Fig5.1: Shell 93: geometry
26
Fig6.1: Geometry of BTPS
30
Fig6.2: Response spectra graph for 0.5g
37
39
40
Fig7.1: key points to create CT model
52
Fig7.2: Geometric model
52
Fig7.3: Boundary condition
52
Fig7.4: Thickness of rcc shell
52
Fig7.5: Element number in model
53
Fig7.6: Node number in model
53
Static analysis:
Fig7.7: Deflection for CT1
53
Fig7.8: Principal stress for CT1
54
Fig7.9: Principal strain for CT1
54
Fig7.10: Von mises stress for CT1
54
Fig7.11: Von mises strain for CT1
54
Modal Analysis:
55
56
56
56
56
Response spectrum analysis for 0.5g:

57
58
58
58
58

59
60
60
60
60

61
62
62
62
62
vi
Wind Analysis:
Fig7.32: Applied wind pressure for CT1
63
64
64
64
65
65
vii
ABBREVIATIONS
For the purpose of this standard, the following letter symbols shall have the meaning indicated
against each:
IS: 11504-1985: criteria for structural design of reinforced concrete

natural draught cooling towers
rth= throat radius
rth/b= slope of the asymptote of the generating hyperbola
D= base diameter at basin sill level
Ee= modulus of elasticity of concrete (short term modulus)
Fn= Fourier coefficient of nib term
d = thickness of the shell
H= total tower height above basin sill level
M= meridional moment per unit length of the middle surface
M= circumferential moment per unit length of the middle surface
M, M= twisting moments per unit length of the middle surface
n= nth harmonic
N= meridional stress resultant per unit length of middle surface
Ne= circumferential stress resultant per unit length of middle surface
N, N = shearing stress resultants per unit length of middle surface
p'= design wind pressure coefficient
p= a constant reference load intensity per unit area of middle surface
per= critical buckling pressure
P, P, Pz =load components per unit area of middle surface
Q, Q = transverse shear stress resultants per unit length of middle surface
R0= horizontal radius
r b = base radius
Hb= vertical distance from the throat to basin sill level
viii
r t= top radius
Ht= vertical distance from the throat to the top of the shell
Y= vertical coordinates
<f>= angle between vertical and the normal to an element of the shell
= the circumferential angle
= Poisson's ratio of concrete
IS 875 (part 3)-1987: Code of practice design loads (other than earthquake)
A = surface area of a structure or part of a structure
Ae= effective frontal area
Az = an area at height z
b= breadth of a structure or structural member normal to the wind stream. in the horizontal
plane
Ct=
force coefficient/drag coefficient
Cfn=
normal force coefficient
C't=
frictional drag coefficient
Cp=
pressure coefficient
Cpe=
external pressure coefficient
CPt=
internal pressure coefficient
d = depth of a structure or structural member parallel to wind stream

D=
diameter of cylinder
F=
force normal to the surface
Fn=
normal force
Ft=
transverse force
F'-=
frictional force;
h = height of structure above mean ground level

hx = height of development of a velocity profile at a distance x down wind from a change in
terrain category
k1, k2, k3 = Multiplication factors
ix
K= Multiplication factor
l = length of the member or greater horizontal dimension of a building
pa = design wind pressure
pz = design wind pressure at height z
pe = external pressure
p1= internal pressure
Re = Reynolds number
Vb = regional basic wind speed
Vz = design wind velocity at height z
x = distance down wind from a change in terrain category
= wind angle from given axis
= inclination of the roof to the horizontal
= effective solidity ratio
= solidity ratio
z = a height or distance above the ground
= average height of the surface roughness
IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002: Criteria for earthquake resistant design of

structures
Ah= Design horizontal seismic coefficient
Ak =Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value for mode k of vibration
bi = ith Floor plan dimension of the building perpendicular to the direction of force
c =Index for the closely-spaced modes
d = Base dimension of the building, in meters, in the direction in which the seismic force is
considered.
DL = Response quantity due to dead load
edi = Design eccentricity to be used at floor i calculated as per 7.8.2
esi = Static eccentricity at floor i defined as the distance between centre of mass and center of
rigidity
x
ELx = Response quantity due to earthquake load for horizontal shaking along x-direction
ELy = Response quantity due to earthquake load for horizontal shaking along y-directicn
ELz = Response quantity due to earthquake load for vertical shaking along z-direction
Froof = design lateral forces at the roof due to all modes considered
Fi= Peak lateral forces at the floor i due to all modes considered
g = Acceleration due to gravity
h = Height of structure, in meters
I = Importance factor
Mk = Modal mass of mode k
n = Number of storeys
Pk =Modal participation factor of mode k
Qi = Lateral force at floor i
Qik = Design lateral force at floor i in mode k
,-
r = Number of modes to be considered as per 7.8.4.2

R = Response reduction factor
Sa/g = Average response acceleration .coefficient for rock or soil sites as given by Figure 2
and Table 3 based on appropriate natural periods and damping of the structure
T = Undamped natural period of vibration of the structure (in seconds)
Ta = Approximate fundamental period (in seconds)
Tk = Undamped natural period of mode k of vibration (in seconds)
VH = Design seismic base shear
VB = Design base shear calculated using the approximate fundamental period Ta
Vi = Peak storey shear force in storey i due to all modes considered
VA = Shear force in storey i in mode k
y = Peak storey shear force at the roof due to al! modes considered
W = Seismic weight of the structure
Wi = Seismic weight of floor i
Z = Zone factor
ik = Mode shape coefficient at floor i in mode k
xi
TO STUDY THE EFFECT OF SEISMIC AND WIND LOADS ON HYPERBOLIC COOLING

TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC SHELL THICKNESS
CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION OF HYPERBOLIC COOLING

TOWER:
1.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION:
Hyperbolic cooling towers are large, thin shell reinforced concrete structures which
contribute to environmental protection and to power generation efficiency and reliability.
Hyperbolic reinforced concrete cooling towers are widely used for cooling large quantities of
water in thermal power stations, refineries, atomic power plants, steel plants, air conditioning
and other industrial plants. Natural-draught cooling towers are used in nuclear power plants
as heat exchangers. These shell structures are submitted to environmental loads such as
seismic and thermal gradients that are stochastic in nature. Due to the complexity of the
building procedure, uncertainties in the material properties as well as differences between the
theoretical and the real geometry also exist. A series of a hyperbolic cooling tower as shown
in Fig1.1
Fig 1.1: Group of cooling tower

Figure 1.2 summarizes the historical development of natural draft cooling towers. Technical
cooling devices first came into use at the end of the 19th century. The well-known hyperbolic
shape of cooling towers was introduced by two Dutch engineers, Van Iterson and Kuyper,
who in 1914 constructed the first hyperboloid towers which were 35 m high. Soon, capacities
and heights increased until around 1930, when tower heights of 65 m were achieved. The
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 1

first such structures to reach higher than 100 m were the towers of the High Marnham Power
Station in Britain. Todays tallest cooling towers, located at several EDF nuclear power
Plants in France, reach heights of about 170 m. And it is predicted that 200 m high towers
will be constructed in the early 21st century.
FIG.1.2: Historical development of Natural draft cooling tower
1.2 TYPES OF COOLING TOWERS:

This section describes the two main types of cooling towers: the natural draft and mechanical
draft cooling towers.
1.2.1 NATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER:

The natural draft or hyperbolic cooling tower makes use of the difference in temperature
between the ambient air and the hotter air inside the tower. As hot air moves upwards
through the tower (because hot air rises), fresh cool air is drawn into the tower through an air
inlet at the bottom. Due to the layout of the tower, no fan is required and there is almost no
circulation of hot air that could affect the performance. Concrete is used for the tower shell
with a height of up to 200 m. These cooling towers are mostly only for large heat duties
because large concrete structures are expensive. There are two main types of natural draft
towers:
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 2

1. Cross flow tower (Figure 1.3): air is drawn across the falling water and the fill is
located outside the tower
2. Counter flow tower (Figure 1.4): air is drawn up through the falling water and the fill
is therefore located inside the tower, although design depends on specific site
conditions.
Fig 1.3: Cross flow cooling tower
Fig1.4: Counter flow cooling tower
1.2.2 MECHANICLA DRAFT COOLING TOWER:

Because of their huge shape, construction difficulties and cost, natural draft towers have been
replaced by mechanical draft towers in many installations. Mechanical draft towers have
large fans to force or draw air through circulated water. The water falls downwards over fill
surfaces, which helps increase the contact time between the water and the air. Cooling rates
of mechanical draft towers depend upon various parameters; such as fan diameter and speed
of operation, fills for system resistance, etc. There are two different classes of mechanical
draft cooling towers:
1. Forced draft:
2. Induced draft:
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 3

1.3 COMPONENTS OF NATURAL DRAFT COOLING

TOWER:
The most prominent component of a natural draft cooling tower is the huge, towering shell.
This shell is supported by diagonal, meridional, or vertical columns bridging the air inlet.
The columns, made of high-strength reinforced concrete, are either prefabricated or cast in
situ into moveable steel forms. After the erection of the ring of columns and the lower edge
member, the climbing formwork is assembled and the stepwise climbing construction of the
cooling tower shell begins (Figure 1.5). Fresh concrete and reinforcement steel are supplied
to the working site by a central crane anchored to the completed parts of the shell, and are
placed in lifts up to 2 m high (Figure 1.6). After sufficient strength has been gained, the
complete forms are raised for the next lift to enhance the durability of the concrete and to
provide sufficient cover for the reinforcement; the cooling tower shell thickness should not
be less than 16 to 18 cm. The shell itself should be sufficiently stiffened by upper and lower
edge members. In order to achieve sufficient resistance against instability, large cooling
tower shells may be stiffened by additional internal or external rings. These stiffeners may
also serve as a repair or rehabilitation tool.
Fig1.5: Fabrication of supporting columns
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Fig1.6: Climbing construction of shell
Page 4

1.4 COOLING TOWER MATERIALS:

Cooling tower structures are constructed using a variety of materials. While package cooling
towers are generally constructed with fiber glass, galvanized steel or stainless steel in special
situation, many possibilities exits for field erected structure. Field erected towers can be
constructed of redwood, fiber glass, steel or concrete. Each material has advantage &
disadvantage.
1. Galvanized steel :
The most cost-effective material of construction for packaged tower in G-235 hot dip
galvanized steel, from both structural & corrosion resistance stand point. G-235 is the
heaviest galvanizing mill commercially available and offers a substantial amount of
protection as compared to the lighter zinc thickness used several decades ago, providing
reliable corrosion protection for most HVAC and industrial system water chemistries. The
most common upgrade from G-235 galvanized steel in type 304 stainless steel. Parts that are
submerged during operation and at shutdown can benefit the most by upgrading to stainless
steel.
2. Stainless steel:
Type 304 stainless steel construction is recommended for cooling tower that are to be used in
a highly corrosive environment.
3. Concrete Towers:
Large field erected towers for power plant and refinery applications are constructed of
concrete. Concrete towers will last more than 40 yrs, but they are the most expensive to
build, because of their cost. They represent only 2-3% of all field erected towers some times
concrete construction is also used for architectural reasons (where the tower is disguised to
look like or blend with a building) or the cooling towers is designed as a structure with a life
expectancy equal to the facility it serves.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 5

4. Fiber Reinforced plastic towers:
Currently the first growing segment of the cooling tower market is structure built with
pultruded FRP sections. This inert inorganic material is strong, light weight, chemically
resistant and able to handle a range of PH values fire-retardant.FRP can eliminate the cost of
a fire protection system, which can equal 5-12% of the cost of a cooling tower.
1.5 IS: 11504-1985 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COOLING

TOWER:
The following loading should be considered

1. Dead load
2. Wind load
3. Earthquake forces
4. Thermal resistant loads
5. Construction loads
6. Any other loads such as snow loads, foundation settlement etc
Tower design considerations

1. Size and shape: The base diameter, air intake, opening height, tower height
and throat diameter are basically designed by thermal consideration
2. Spacing: It is recommended that cooling towers in group be spaced at clear
distance of not less than 0.5 times the base diameter of the largest cooling
tower in the group.
3. Tower shell analysis: This shall be in accordance with general accepted
principles of structural mechanics and sound engineering practices.
The following stipulations are made:
Analysis shall be as per the accepted theories of elasticity
applicable to thin shell of revolution.
For elastic analysis concrete may be assumed to be un-cracked,
homogeneous and isotropic.
Attention in drawn to the possibility of Wind induced
vibrations in the shell.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 6

Minimum reinforcement and spacing: The minimum reinforcement to be provided in

each direction shall be as follows;
1. 0.35 percent of gross cross sectional area when mild steel bars are used.
2. 0.25 percent when cold worked steel high strength deformed bars are used.
The maximum spacing shall be restricted to twice the thickness of the shell in either
direction. It is preferable to provide reinforcement at both the faces of the shell. For shells of
175mm thick and above two layers of reinforcement should invariably provide.
1.6 ADVANATAGES OF COOLING TOWER:

2. Light weight, high strength may reduce support requirements
3. Corrosion resistant a good match for the cooling tower environment
4. Long-lasting lower lifetime cost than traditional building materials
5. Easy fabrication weighs less to transport and is quick and easy to install
6. Nonconductive and non sparking wont conduct electricity and contains no metal.
7. Proven performance Bedford has developed several proprietary glass, pigment and
resin systems for the cooling tower industry
8. Low thermal conductivity does not easily conduct heat or cold
9. Industry commitment Bedford is a member of the Cooling Technology Institute
1.7 DETAILS OF BELLARY THERMAL POWER PLANT:

For the purpose of comparison an existing cooling tower is consider, (BTPS, Karnataka).
Bellary thermal power station is a power generating unit near kudithini village in Bellary
taluk, Bellary district, and Karnataka state. BTPS is geographically located at 1501158 N
latitude and 7604323 E longitude. The total height of the tower is 143.5 m. The tower has a
base, throat and top radii of 55 m, 30.5 m and 31.85 m respectively, with the throat located
107.75 m above the base. It has a shell-wall thickness of 200 mm at throat level.Basic wind
speed is 39 m/sec, risk co-efficient Factor K1 shall be taken as 1.06, Terrain category shall be
2 and corresponding values shall be taken for K2, risk co-efficient Factor K3 shall be taken
as 1.0. The seismic zone is zone-III, importance factor (I) is 1.5.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 7

Fig 1.7: Location of BTPS
1.8 OBJECTIVE:
1. To analyze the hyperbolic cooling tower by using finite element analysis (FEA).
2. For the purpose of comparison an existing tower should be considering, bellary
thermal power plant (details from KPCL, Bangalore) and studied the seismic and
wind loads of hyperbolic cooling tower.
3. For other models dimensions and rcc shell thickness is varied with respect to
reference tower.
4. Analysis has been carried out using 8 noded 93 shell elements using ANSYS V.10.
5. The out come of result is Max deflection, Max Principal stress & strain & Von mises
stress & strain.
1.9 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS:

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION OF HYPERBOLIC COOLING TOWER
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER 3: REINFORCED CONCRETE SHELL
CHAPTER 4: INTRODUCTION TO FEM PACKAGE USED ANSYS
CHAPTER 5: DETAILS OF ELEMENT UTILIZED FOR THIS ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS PROCEDURE AND CALCULATION
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 8

CHAPTER 7: TABULATION AND RESULTS
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSSION
CHAPTER 9: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: JOURNAL PAPER
APPENDIX B: GEOMETRIC DRAWING OF BTPS
APPENDIX C:
1) IS: 11504:1985., Criteria for structural design of reinforced concrete natural draught
2) IS: 875 (Part3):1987. Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake loads)
3) IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 Criteria for earthquake resistant design structure.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 9

CHAPTER-2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
2.1 INTRODUCTION:
The field of finite element analysis of shells and shell structures has been very widely researched
consequently enormous literature was available regarding various aspects of their behavior. It
would be impossible to cover all such publications; therefore some selected segments of the
literature were presented herein by the way providing the literature survey. The important aspect
in such publications was concisely presented in the form of the abstracts of the subject matter
presented in such publications. Hence, it was opined that the listing of the abstracts of the
selected segment of the literature should serve the purpose of literature review adequately. The
literature available on the investigations on the hyperbolic cooling tower is presented.
2.2 REVIEWS ON HYPERBOLIC COOLING TOWER:

Response of natural draught cooling tower to wind load.
Journal: ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, VOL. 7, NO. 1, JANUARY
2012 ISSN 1819-6608,
Author: G. Murali.
This paper deals with the study of two cooling towers of 122m and 200m high above ground
level. These cooling towers have been analyzed for wind loads using ANSYS software by
assuming fixity at the shell base. The wind loads on these cooling towers have been
calculated in the form of pressures by using the circumferentially distributed design wind
pressure coefficients as given in IS: 11504-1985 code along with the design wind pressures at
different levels as per IS:875 (Part 3)- 1987 code. The analysis has been carried out using 8noded shell element (SHELL 93) with 5 degrees of freedom per node.
The results of the analysis include: Membrane forces, Bending moments. The vertical
distribution of membrane forces and bending moments along 0 and 70 meridians and the
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 10

circumferential distributions at base, throat and top levels have been studied for both the
cooling towers. For circumferential distribution, non-dimensional values have been obtained
by normalizing the membrane forces and bending moments using the reference values at 0
meridian.
Finite element analysis for structural response of cooling

tower shell considering alternative supporting systems:
Journal: IJCIET, Volume 3, Issue 1, January- June (2012), pp. 82-98

Author: Esmaeil Asadzadeh.
He studied the following kind of supports to the shell part of the tower. Such as Fixity at the
base, I type of column support at the base, V type of column support at the base. With a view
to compare the relative influence of the supports on the structural response offered by the
shell for available case history Finite Element Analysis employing higher order Mindlin
formulation have been undertaken. The comparison has been made of the self-weight
loading, static wind loading and pseudo static seismic activities the loads are calculated as
per the recommendation of relevant IS codes.
Response analysis of an RC cooling tower under seismic and

windstorm effects
Journal: Acta Polytechnica Vol. 46 No. 6/2006
Author: D. Makovicka,
The paper compares the RC structure of a cooling tower unit under seismic loads and under
strong wind loads. The calculated values of the envelopes of the displacements and the
internal forces due to seismic loading states are compared with the envelopes of the loading
states due to the dead, operational and live loads, wind and temperature actions. The seismic
effect takes into account the seismic area of ground motion 0.3g and the ductility properties
of a relatively rigid structure. The ductility is assessed as the reduction in seismic load.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 11

In this case the actions of wind pressure are higher than the seismicity effect under ductility
correction. The seismic effects, taking into account the ductility properties of the structure,
are lower than the actions of the wind pressure. The other static loads, especially temperature
action due to the environment and surface insulation are very important for the design of the
structure.
Optimum shape and design of cooling towers.

Journal: World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 60 2011.
Author: A. M. El Ansary
The aim of the current study is to develop a numerical tool that is capable of achieving an
optimum shape and design of hyperbolic cooling towers based on coupling a non-linear finite
element model developed in-house and a genetic algorithm optimization technique. The
objective function is set to be the minimum weight of the tower. The geometric modeling of
the tower is represented by means of B-spline curves. The finite element method is applied to
model the elastic buckling behavior of a tower subjected to wind pressure and dead load.
The study is divided into two main parts. The first part investigates the optimum shape of the
tower corresponding to minimum weight assuming constant thickness. The study is extended
in the second part by introducing the shell thickness as one of the design variables in order to
achieve an optimum shape and design. Design, functionality and practicality constraints are
applied.
Numerical study of the nonlinear dynamic behavior of RCC towers

under earthquake excitation.
Journal: Received: 8 September 2005; Received revised form: 17 January 2006; Accepted: 17
January 2006.
Author: Saeid Sabouri-Ghomi
This paper presents the results of a finite element investigation of a representative dry
cooling tower, using realistic horizontal and vertical acceleration data obtained from the
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 12

recent and widely-reported Tabas, Naghan and Bam earthquakes in Iran. The results of both
linear and nonlinear analyses are reported in the paper, the locations of plastic hinges within
the supporting columns are identified and the ramifications of the plastic hinges on the stability
of the cooling tower are assessed. It is concluded that for the (typical) cooling tower
configuration analysed, the columns that are instrumental in providing a load path are
influenced greatly by earthquake loading, and for the earthquake data used in this study the
representative cooling tower would be rendered unstable and would collapse under the
earthquake forces considered.
Structural aspects of hyperbolic cooling tower.

Journal: National seminar on Cooling tower, jan1990
Author: N.PRABHAKAR
The present day hyperbolic cooling towers are exceptional structures in view of their
sheer size and complexities. The towers involve considerable amount of design work on
structural aspect. Besides providing suitable structural profile to meet the functional needs, the
design requires consideration of external applied, ladings, both in static and dynamic. The Paper
describes briefly salient structural features and current practices adopted in the structural
design of hyperbolic cooling towers.
Cooling towers are undoubtedly exceptional structures which require special expertise both to
design and construct. Meridional form of the shell and proper assessment of wind loads are of
considerable importance in arriving at stress resultant values and buckling safety factors. As
the .structure is sensitive to wind loads, shell reinforcement must be provided ' on the basis of
limit state approach.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 13

CHAPTER-3
REINFORCED CONCRETE SHELL:

3.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION:
Though Lombart of France built out of steel mesh and concrete (reinforced concrete)
as early as in 1850, it was only just before World War I that reinforced concrete came in to
use. (It is interesting to note that prestressed concrete became popular after World War II.)
The aircraft hangar at Corley in France built by Fressinet around 1917 shown in fig 3.1 can
be considered as the first real reinforced concrete shell construction. It was in the form of
arches spaced at small spacing. The catnary shells spanned between the arches. The arches
were constructed from the ground (foundation) Level so that the reactions are taken by the
ground. These arches were connected together in the longitudinal direction by corrugations
(shells) as shown in fig 3.1
The mathematical theory of shells was not known to engineers till the membrane theory of
shells (usually credited to G.Lame and G.Clapeyorn) was published in 1828 (19th century).
However, it was only as late as in 1923, about 100 years later that dichinger and baversfeld
used the membrane theory to build a reinforced concrete dome over the design of shells.
Another dome that dichinger and baversfeld built is a hemispherical dome, only 30mm thick
and 16m in diameter. There is no horizontal reaction as the ends are in 90 but it develops
hoop tension below 52 which is resisted by steel reinforcement.
Engineers soon realized that reinforced concrete, unlike steel, can be made continuous and
used to cover space. Reinforced concrete has both strength and body and is a much superior
material to cover a large space in building construction. Steel and wood can be used as beams
and columns but not as slabs or shells. With prestressing, we can cover very large spaces.
This concept has encouraged the present use of shells for covering very large areas like
factories, hangars, assembly hall etc with rising cost of steel and concrete, shell construction
is bound to become popular for large span roofs.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 14

Fig 3.1: Aircraft hangar at, Orly, France
3.2 REINFORCED CONCRETE THIN SHEL STRUCTURES:

3.2.1 Thin shell:
1. Definition - A thin shell is a curved slab whose thickness h is small compared with its
other dimensions and compared with its principal radius of curvature.
2. Middle surface
The surface that bisects the shell is called the middle surface. It
specifies the form of this surface and the thickness h at every point.
3. Analysis of thin shells consists the following steps:
Establish equilibrium of a differential element cut from the shell
Achieve strain compatibility so that each element remains continuous with

each adjacent element after deformation.
4. Stress resultants and stress couples
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 15

3.2.2 Shell theories:

1. The Kirchhoff-Love theory - The first-approximation of shells
Assumptions:
1) The shell thickness is negligibly small in comparison with the least radius of curvature of
the shell middle surface.
2) Strains and displacements that arise within the shells are small.
3) Straight lines that are normal to the middle surface prior to deformation remain straight
and normal to the middle surface during deformation, and experience no change in
length.(Analogous to Naviers hypothesis for beams - Bernoulli-Euler theory for beams)
4) The direct stress acting in the direction normal to the shell middle surface is negligible.
Results of the assumptions:
1) Normal directions to the reference surface remain straight and normal to the
deformed reference surface.
2) The hypothesis precludes any transverse-shear strain, i.e., no change in the right angle
between the normal and any line in the surface.
3) It is strictly applicable to thin shells.
4) It is not descriptive of the behavior near localized loads or junctions. (Assumption (4)
is not valid in the vicinity of concentrated transverse loads.
2. The Flugge-Byrne theory - The second-approximation of shells
Assumptions:
1) It adopts only assumption (2).
2) It is referred to as higher-order approximations of the Kirchhoff-Love assumptions
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 16

3.3 Classification of shells:

Classified by governing equation of geometry:
1. Paraboloid of revolution
2. Hyperboloid of revolution
3. Circular cylinder
4. Elliptic paraboloid
5. Hyperbolic paraboloid
6. Circular cone
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 17

CHAPTER-4
INTRODUCTION TO FEM PACKAGE USED ANSYS:

4.1 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS PROGRAMS:
Computer implementation of finite elements and solution procedures for engineering
analysis is addressed. The end product is a general-purpose finite element analysis program.
For such software to be used as an effective CAE tool, the programming should be hardware
independent. The chosen finite elements and numerical methods must be accurate and reliable.
The program should be executable on a given platform of choice - single processor, multiprocessor, parallel processor, etc. A general purpose FEA program consists of three modules: a
preprocessor, a solver, and a postprocessor. Commercial FEA programs can handle very large
number of nodes and nodal degrees of freedom provided a powerful hardware is made available.
User's manual, theoretical manual, and verification problems manual, document a commercial
FEA program. Surveys of general-purpose programs for finite element analysis have been
published [3.1]. At present FEA programs are used rather than written. Understanding of the
organization, capabilities, and limitations of commercial FEA programs is generally more
important than an ability to develop or even modify a FEA code.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the organization and desirable capabilities of a
general-purpose FEA program. A brief description of widely distributed and extensively used
commercial FEA codes is included so that the reader is aware of their current capabilities.
Benchmark constitutes a standard set of test problems devised to assess the performance of FEA
codes. The practical issue of developing a viable FEA program and its implementation in the PC
environment is a much larger challenge. Typically, it involves hundreds of human year's effort.
4.1.1 FEA PROGRAM: ORGANIZTION

The four components shown in Fig. 4.1 are common to virtually all general-purpose FEA
programs The INPUT phase enables the user to provide information relating to geometric
representation, finite element discretization, support conditions, applied loads, and material
properties. The more sophisticated commercial FEM systems facilitate automated generation of
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 18

nodes and elements and provide access to a material property database. Plotting of the finite
element model is also possible so that errors if any, in the input phase, may be delected and
corrected prior to performing computations. The finite element library comprises the element
matrix generation modules. Herein resides the coded formulative process for the individual
finite elements. Ideally, the element library is open-ended and capable of accommodating new
elements to any degree of complexity. This phase generates the required element matrices
and vectors.
Fig4.1: Component of a general purpose finite element analysis program

The assembly module includes alt matrix operations necessary to position the element
matrices for connection to neighboring elements and the connection process itself. The latter
operation thereby produces the global matrix equation of the finite element model. The
solution phase operates on the governing matrix equation of the problem derived in the
previous phase. In the case of a linear static analysis, this may mean no more than the
solution of a set of linear algebraic equations for a known right-hand side. In the case of
linear vibration and buckling analysis, this may mean the extraction of Eigen values and
Eigen vectors. Transient response analysis will require computations over a time history of
applied load.
Finally, the results phase provides the analyst with a record of the solution. The record is
commonly a printed list of nodal d.a.f, element strains and stresses, reaction forces
corresponding to constrained degrees of freedom and a host of other requested
information. As in input phase, there is a trend toward graphical output of results such as
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 19

plots of displacement and stress contours, modes of vibration and buckling, etc. A
commercial FEM system therefore consists of three basic modules; pre-processor; solver;
and post-processor. These modules and their functions are illustrated in Fig. 9.2. The preprocessor allows the user to create geometry or input CAD geometry, and provides the
tools for meshing the geometry. The solver lakes the finite element mode! Provided by the
pre-processor and computes the required response. The post-processor takes the data from
the solver and presents it in a form that the user can understand.
4.2 MATERIAL MODELS:

To cover a large number of metallic and non-metallic materials and a wide range of their
behavior, a general-purpose FEA program should provide a library of material models:
1. Homogeneous, isotropic, linear, elastic
2. Ortho tropic
3. Anisotropic
4. Nonlinear elastic
5. Elastic plastic
6. Viscoelastic
7. Viscoplastic
8. Temperature-dependent material properties.
4.3 ELEMENT LIBRARY:

The available elements are for solid, structural, thermal and fluid flow analysis. They can be
classified as follows:
1. One-dimensional elements
1-D.2-D, 3-D bar elements
Linear/quadratic/cubic in order
2. Two-dimensional elements
Triangular/quadrilateral in shape
With straight/curved edges
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 20

3. Axisymmetric ring elements
Triangular/quadrilateral in shape
With flat/curved surfaces
4. Three-dimensional elements
Tetrahedra/hexahedra/pentahedra in shape
With flat/curved faces
5. Beam elements
Euler-Bernouli theory/shear deformation theory
1-D, 2-D, 3-D beam elements
6. Plate elements
Kirchhoff theory/Mindlin theory
Triangular/quadrilateral shapes
With straight-curved edges
7. Shell elements
Flat shell elements/facet approximation.
Curved shell elements: triangular/quadrilateral shapes; quadratic/cubic orders.
Axisymmetric shell elements: with curved surfaces; linear/quadratic/cubic in
order.
Some of these elements are formulated to handle large displacements, large rotations and
finite strains. Some formulations use reduced integration with hourglass control.
4.4 PROCEDURES LIBRARY:

1. Linear static analysis
2. Linear dynamic analysis: Free vibration, mode superposition, response spectrum
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 21

4.5
FEA PROGRAM:
1.
ANSYS
2.
MSC.Nastran
3.
NISA
4.
MARC
5.
LS-DYNA
4.5.1 ANSYS V.10: This fem package used for analysis.

ANSYS V.10 is an integrated design analysis tool based on the FEM developed by ANSYS,
Inc. It has its own tightly integrated pre- and post-processor. The ANSYS product
documentation is excellent and it includes commands reference; operations guide; modeling
and meshing guide; basic analysis procedures guide; advanced analysis guide; element
reference;
theory
reference;
structural
analysis
guide;
thermal
analysis
guide;
electromagnetic fields analysis guide; fluid dynamics guide; and coupled field analysis
guide. Taken together, these manuals provide descriptions of the procedures, commands,
elements, and theoretical details needed to use the ANSYS program. All of the above
manuals except the ANSYS theory reference are available online through the ANSYS help
system, which can be accessed either as a standalone system or from within the ANSYS
program. A brief description of the information found in each of the manuals follows.
Engineering capabilities of ANSYS products are: structural analysis (linear stress, nonlinear
stress, dynamic, buckling); thermal analysis (steady state, transient, conduction, convention,
radiation, and phase change); CFD analysis (steady state, transient, incompressible,
compressible, laminar, turbulent); electromagnetic fields analysis (Magnetostatics,
electrostatics); field and coupled field analysis (acoustics, fluid-structural, fluid-thermal,
magnetic-fluid, magnetic-structural, magnetic-thermal, piezoelectric, thermal-electric,
thermal-structural, electric-magnetic); sub-modeling; optimization; and parametric design
language.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 22

Element library in ANSYS lists 189 finite elements, they are broadly grouped into: LINK,
PLANE, BEAM, SOLID, CONTAC, COMBIN, PIPE. MASS, SHELL, FLUID, SOURCE,
MATRIX, HYPER, VISCO, INFIN, INTER, SURF, etc. Under each type, different shapes
and orders complete the list. Obviously ANSYS has the best elements in its library.
Analysis procedures in ANSYS can be grouped into: static analysis; transient analysis;
mode frequency analysis; harmonic response analysis; buckling analysis; sub-structuring
analysis; and spectrum analysis.
4.5.2 BASIC PROGRAM STRUCTURE:

Treatment of engineering problems basically contains three main parts: create a
model, solve the problem, analyse the results. ANSYS, like many other FE-programs, is also
divided into three main parts (processors) which are called preprocessor, solution processor,
postprocessor. During the analysis you will communicate with ANSYS via a Graphical User
Interface (GUI), which is described below and seen in Figure 4.3.
Fig 4.2: ANSYS graphical user interface
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 23

1. Utility menu: Here you can access and adjust properties about your session, such as file
controls, listing and graphic controls.
2. Toolbar: Push buttons to commonly used commands.
3. Main menu: Here you can find the processors used when analyzing your problem.
4. Graphics window: In the graphics window your model is displayed: geometry, elements,
visualization of results and so forth.
5. Input window: You can type commands in the input window.
There are 3 step procedures to solve the problem in ANSYS:
4.5.2.1
PREPROCESSOR:
Within the preprocessor the model is set up. It includes a number of steps and usually in the
following order:
1. Build geometry: Depending on whether the problem geometry is one, two or three
dimensional, the geometry consists of creating lines, areas or volumes. These
geometries can then, if necessary, be used to create other geometries by the use of
Boolean operations. The key idea when building the geometry like this is to simplify
the generation of the element mesh. Hence, this step is optional but most often used.
Nodes and elements can however be created from coordinates only.
2. Define materials: A material is defined by its material constants. Every element has to
be assigned a particular material.
3. Generate element mesh: The problem is discretized with nodal points. The nodes are
connected to form finite elements, which together form the material volume.
Depending on the problem and the assumptions that are made, the element type has to
be determined. Common element types are truss, beam, plate, shell and solid
elements. Each element type may contain several subtypes, e.g. 2D 4-noded solid, 3D
20-noded solid elements. Therefore, care has to be taken when the element type is
chosen.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 24

The element mesh can in ANSYS be created in several ways. The most common way is that
it is automatically created, however more or less controlled. For example you can specify a
Certain number of elements in a specific area, or you can force the mesh generator to
maintain a specific element size within an area. Certain element shapes or sizes are not
recommended and if these limits are violated, a warning will be generated in ANSYS. It is up
to the user to create a mesh which is able to generate results with a sufficient degree of
accuracy.
4.5.2.2
SOLUTION:
Here you solve the problem by gathering all specified information about the problem:
1. Apply loads: Boundary conditions are usually applied on nodes or elements. The
prescribed quantity can for example be force, traction, displacement, moment,
rotation. The loads may in ANSYS also be edited from the preprocessor.
2. Obtain solution: The solution to the problem can be obtained if the whole problem is
defined.
4.5.2.3
GENERAL POSTPROCESSOR:
Within this part of the analysis you can for example:

1. Visualize the results: For example plot the deformed shape of the geometry or
stresses.
2. List the results: If you prefer tabular listings or file printouts, it is possible.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 25

CHAPTER-5
DETAILS OF ELEMENT UTILIZED FOR THIS

ANALYSIS: SHELL93, 8-NODE STRUCTURAL SHELL.
5.1 SHELL93 ELEMENT DESCRIPTION:
SHELL93 is particularly well suited to model curved shells. The element has six
degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations
about the nodal x, y, and z-axes. The deformation shapes are quadratic in both in-plane
directions. The element has plasticity, stress stiffening, large deflection, and large strain
capabilities.
FIG 5.1: SHELL 93 GEOMETRY
5.2 SHELL93 INPUT DATA:

The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system for this element are shown in FIG5.1 the element is defined by eight nodes, four thicknesses, and the orthotropic material
properties. Midside nodes may not be removed from this element. A triangular-shaped
element may be formed by defining the same node number for nodes K, L and O. Orthotropic
material directions correspond to the element coordinate directions. The element coordinate
system orientation is as described in Coordinate Systems. The element x and y-axes are in the
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 26

plane of the element. The x-axis may be rotated an angle THETA (in degrees) toward the yaxis. The element may have variable thickness. The thickness is assumed to vary smoothly
over the area of the element, with the thickness input at the corner nodes. The thickness at the
Midside nodes is taken as the average of the corresponding corner nodes. If the element has a
constant thickness, only TK (I) need be input. If the thickness is not constant, all four
thicknesses must be input. If the total thickness of any shell element is greater than twice the
radius of curvature, ANSYS issues an error. If the total thickness is greater than one-fifth but
less than twice the radius of curvature, ANSYS issues a warning. ADMSUA is the added
mass per unit area.
Element loads are described in Node and Element Loads. Pressures may be input as surface
loads on the element faces as shown by the circled numbers on Figure 1: "SHELL93
Geometry". Positive pressures act into the element. Edge pressures are input as force per unit
length. Temperatures may be input as element body loads at the "corner" locations (1-8)
shown in Figure 1: "SHELL93 Geometry". The first corner temperature T1 defaults to
TUNIF. If all other temperatures are unspecified, they default to T1. If only T1 and T2 are
input, T1 is used for T1, T2, T3, and T4, while T2 (as input) is used for T5, T6, T7, and T8.
For any other input pattern, unspecified temperatures default to TUNIF. Only the lumped
mass matrix is available.
KEYOPT (8) = 2 is used to store midsurface results in the results file for single or multi-layer
shell elements. If you use SHELL, MID, you will see these calculated values, rather than the
average of the TOP and BOTTOM results. You should use this option to access these correct
midsurface results (membrane results) for those analyses where averaging TOP and
BOTTOM results is inappropriate; examples include midsurface stresses and strains with
nonlinear material behavior, and midsurface results after mode combinations that involve
squaring operations such as in spectrum analyses. A summary of the element input is given in
"SHELL93 Input Summary". A general description of element input is given in "SHELL93
Input Summary".
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 27

5.3 SHELL93 INPUT SUMMARY:

1. Nodes: I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P
2. Degrees of Freedom: UX, UY, UZ, ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ
3. Real Constants: TK (I), TK (J), TK (K), TK (L), THETA, ADMSUA.
See Table 1: "SHELL93 Real Constants" for a description of the real constants.
4. Material Properties: EX, EY, EZ, ALPX, ALPY, ALPZ (or CTEX, CTEY, CTEZ or
THSX, THSY, THSZ), (PRXY, PRYZ, PRXZ or NUXY, NUYZ, NUXZ), DENS,
GXY, GYZ, GXZ, DAMP
5. Surface Loads: Pressures - Face 1 (I-J-K-L) (bottom, in +Z direction), face 2 (I-J-KL) (top, in -Z direction), face 3 (J-I), Face 4 (K-J), face 5 (L-K), face 6 (I-L)
6. Body Loads: Temperature T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8
7. Special Features: Plasticity, Stress stiffening, large deflection, large strain, birth and
death, Adaptive descent.
TABLE 5.1: SHELL93 Real Constants
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 28

5.4 SHELL93 ASSUMPTION AND RESTRICTIONS:

5.4.1 ASSUMPTION:
Zero area elements are not allowed. This occurs most often whenever the elements are not
numbered properly. Zero thickness elements or elements tapering down to a zero thickness at
any corner are not allowed. The applied transverse thermal gradient is assumed to vary
linearly through the thickness. Shear deflections are included in this element. The out-ofplane (normal) stress for this element varies linearly through the thickness. The transverse
shear stresses (SYZ and SXZ) are assumed to be constant through the thickness. The
transverse shear strains are assumed to be small in a large strain analysis. This element may
produce inaccurate stresses under thermal loads for doubly curved or warped domains.
5.4.2 RESTRICTIONS:
When used in the product(s) listed below, the stated product-specific restrictions apply to this
element in addition to the general assumptions and restrictions given in the previous section.
ANSYS Professional:
1. The DAMP material property is not allowed.
2. The special features allowed are stress stiffening and large deflection.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 29

CHAPTER 6:
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE & CALCULATIONS:

6.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE GEOMETRY OF THE
COOLING TOWER:
For the purpose of comparison an existing cooling tower is consider, (BTPS, Karnataka). The
total height of the tower is 143.5 m. As shown in Fig. 6.2, the tower has a base, throat and top
radii of 55 m, 30.5 m and 31.85 m respectively, with the throat located 107.75 m above the
base. It has a shell-wall thickness of 200 mm at throat level and 500 mm at top. For other
models the dimensions and rcc shell thickness is varied with respect to reference tower.
Geometric details of models as shown in Table: 6.1. The boundary condition of the cooling
tower has been top end free and bottom end is fixed. The material properties of the cooling
tower have young modulus 31GPa, poission ratio 0.15 and density of rcc 25 Kg/m3.
Rt=31.85
35.75
Rthr=30.5
143.5
107.75
98.55
9.2
X
Rb=55
Figure 6.1: Geometry of BTPS
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 30

CT 1: Bellary thermal power plant as reference tower.
CT 2: Decrease the dimensions & increase the thickness of cooling tower.
CT 3: Increase the dimensions & decrease the thickness of cooling tower.
Table 6.1: Geometric details of hyperbolic cooling towers
SI
no
Description
Parametric value
Symbols
CT1
(BTPS. Ref)
CT2
(decreased)
CT3
(increased)
Total height
143.5 m
136.2 m
150.67 m
Height of throat
Hthr
107.75 m
102.36 m
113.13 m
Diameter at top
Dt
63.6 m
60.5 m
66.8 m
Diameter at bottom
Db
110 m
104.5 m
115.5 m
Diameter at throat
Dthr
61 m
57.94 m
64 m
9.2 m
8.74 m
9.66 m
200mm
250mm
150mm
level
6
Column Height
Thickness at throat
Tthr
6.1.1 GEOMETRIC CALCULATIONS:

The geometry of the hyperboloid revolution:
.. (6.1)
In which Ro is the horizontal radius at any vertical coordinate, Y with the origin of
coordinates being defined by the center of the tower throat, ao is the radius of the throat & b
is some characteristic dimension of the hyperboloid.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 31

The dimensions taken for CT2 & CT3 are satisfying the equation 6.1.
All calculation has been calculated using excel program.
1. CT 1: Bellary thermal power plant as reference tower.
At Bottom:
ao = 30.5 m
Ro=55 m
Y= -107.75 m
Substitute in equation 6.1 we get b=71.88 m
At Top:
ao = 30.5 m
Ro=31.85 m
Y= 35.75 m
Table 6.2: Input Geometry values to create model in ANSYS for CT1
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Key
Points
X axis
(mm)
Y axis
(mm)
51800
98550
45200
78550
39350
58500
34650
38550
31500
18550
6
(origin)
7
30650
10000
30950
20000
551077
35750
Page 32

2. CT 2: Decrease the dimensions & increase the thickness of cooling tower.
At Bottom:
ao = 32.025 m
Ro=57.75 m
Y= -113.13 m
At Top:
ao = 32.025 m
Ro=33.44 m
Y= 37.53 m
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Key
Points
X axis
(mm)
Y axis
(mm)
54474.91
103478
47859.34 83477.5
41932.86 63477.5
37027.84 43477.5
33354.71 23477.5
6
(origin)
7
32177.6
10000
32483.8
20000
33492.3
37530
Page 33

3. CT3: Increase the dimensions & decrease the thickness of cooling tower.
At Bottom:
ao = 28.975 m
Ro=52.975 m
Y= -102.36 m
At Top:
ao = 28.975 m
Ro=30.25 m
Y= 33.96 m
Substitute in equation 6.1we get b=113.235 m
Key
Points
X axis
(mm)
Y axis
(mm)
492113
93625
42637.7
73625
36859.2
53625
32305.3
33625
29547.7
13625
6
0
(origin)
7
29087.7
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
0
10000
29423.4
20000
30250.2
33960
Page 34

6.2 EARTHQUAKE FORCES:

The seismic analysis will be carried out for 0.5g, 0.6g & 0.7g (g: Gravity acceleration 9810
KN/m2) in accordance with IS: 1893 by modal analysis of the hyperbolic cooling towers, the
earthquake analysis of the shell will be carried out by response spectrum method. Earthquake
analysis for the fill supporting structures (RCC frames) will be carried out by response
spectrum method. For the Calculation of the Design Spectrum, the following Factors were
considered as per IS 1893(Part I)-2002.
Zone factor: For Zone
III = 0.16, as per table 2, pg16 IS 1893 (part 1):2002
Importance factor
= 1.5, as per table 6, pg 18 IS 1893 (part 1):2002
Response reduction factor
= 3, as per table 7, pg 23 IS 1893 (part 1):2002
Average response acceleration coefficient Sa/g =Soft soil site condition, as per clause 6.4.5,
pp16 IS 1893 (part 1):2002
For Soft soil sites
Sa/g
1+15T,
0.00T0.10
2.50
0.10T0.67
1.67/T
0.67T4.00
The design horizontal seismic coefficient Ah for a structure shall be determined by the
following expression: Maximum considered Earthquake (MCE) of 2% probability
. (6.2)
Provided that for any structure with T 0.1 s, the value of Ah will not be taken less than Z/2
whatever be the value of I/R.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 35

Where
Z= Zone factor is for the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) and service life of
structure in a zone. The factor 2 in the denominator of Z is used so as to reduce the
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) zone factor to the factor for Design Basis
Earthquake (DBE).
I = Importance factor, depending upon the functional use of the structures,
characterized by hazardous consequences of its failure, post- earthquake functional
needs, historical value, or economic importance.
R= Response reduction factor, depending on the perceived seismic damage
performance of the structure, characterized by ductile or brittle deformations.
However, the ratio (I/R) shall not be greater than 1.0. The values of R for buildings
are given in the code.
Sa/g= Average response acceleration coefficient, In case design spectrum is
specifically prepared for a structure at a particular project site, the same may be used
for design at the discretion of the project authorities. For rock and soil sites and based
on appropriate natural periods and damping of the structure. These curves represent
free field ground motion.
The Design acceleration spectrum for vertical motions, when required, may be taken as twothirds of the design horizontal acceleration spectrum.
Note: All calculation has been calculated using excel program
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 36

TABLE 6.5: Design spectrum for 0.5G
FREQUENCY
(HZ)
Ah
X &Z
Dircn
Ah
Z Dircn
0.25
0.0167
0.0111
0.33
0.0223
0.0148
0.5
0.0334
0.0223
0.0668
0.0445
1.33
0.0891
0.0594
1.54
0.1
0.0667
1.67
0.1
0.0667
10
0.1
0.0667
11.11
0.094
0.0627
12.5
0.088
0.0587
14.29
0.082
0.0547
16.67
0.076
0.0507
20
0.07
0.0467
25
0.064
0.0427
33.33
0.058
0.0387
40
0.055
0.0367
50
0.052
0.0347
Fig 6.2: Response spectra graph for 0.5g

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 37

TABLE 6.6: design spectrum for 0.6G
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
FREQUENCY
(Hz)
Ah
X&Z
DIRN
Ah
Y-DIRN
0.25
0.02
0.0134
0.33
0.0267
0.0178
0.5
0.0401
0.0267
0.0802
0.0534
1.33
0.1069
0.0713
1.54
0.12
0.08
1.67
0.12
0.08
10
0.12
0.08
11.11
0.1128
0.0752
12.5
0.1056
0.0704
14.29
0.0984
0.0656
16.67
0.0912
0.0608
20
0.084
0.056
25
0.0768
0.0512
33.33
0.0696
0.0464
40
0.066
0.044
50
0.0624
0.0416
Page 38

TABLE 6.7: Design spectrum for 0.7G
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
FREQUENCY
(Hz)
Ah
X&Z
DIRN
Ah
Y-DIRN
0.25
0.0234
0.0156
0.33
0.0312
0.0208
0.5
0.0468
0.0312
0.0935
0.0623
1.33
0.1247
0.0831
1.54
0.14
0.0933
1.67
0.14
0.0933
10
0.14
0.0933
11.11
0.1316
0.0877
12.5
0.1232
0.0821
14.29
0.1148
0.0765
16.67
0.1064
0.0709
20
0.098
0.0653
25
0.0896
0.0597
Page 39

33.33
0.0812
0.0541
40
0.077
0.0513
50
0.0728
0.0485
6.3 WIND LOADS:

The wind pressure on the towers will be assessed on theoretical basis as given in IS 875
(part 3): 1987. The complete cooling tower will be designed for all possible wind
directions and on the basis of worst load conditions as obtained from the theoretical
methods. The wind pressure at a given height [Pz] will be computed as per the
stipulations of IS: 875 (part 3)-1987. For computing the design wind pressure at a given
height the basic wind speed (Vb) will be taken as Vb=39 m/s at 9.2m height above mean
ground level. For computing design wind speed (Vz) at a height z, the risk coefficient
K1=1.06 will be considered. For coefficient K2 terrain category 2 as per table 2 of IS: 875
(part-3)-1987 will be considered. The wind direction for design purpose will be the one
which world induces worst load condition. Coefficient K3 will be 1 for the tower under
consideration. The wind pressure at a given height wills b e computed theoretically in
accordance to the IS codal provision. Computation of wind pressure (Pz) along the wind
direction by Gust factor method.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 40

For estimating the wind load on the tower and other elements, will be based on IS: 875 (part3) 1987. Design of the tower will satisfy quasi-static method and GF method.
For the Calculation of the wind pressure, the following Factors were considered as per IS 875
(part 3)-1987.
Variation of Hourly mean wind speed with height: The variation of hourly mean wind speed
with height shall be calculated as follows:
Pz = 0.6 Vz2 N/m2. (6.3)
Vz =VbxK1 xK2 xK3 (6.4)
Where,
Vz = Hurly mean wind speed in m/s at height z,
Vb = Regional basic wind speed in m/s, 39m/s as per pp10, fig 1 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
K1 = Risk coefficient factor, as per clause 5.3.1, pp8 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
K2 = Terrain and height factor, from Table 33 IS 875 (part 3)-1987
K3 = Topography factor, as per clause 5.3.3, pp8 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
Table 6.8: Results of variation of hourly mean wind speed with height for CT1
H
Vb
K1
K2
K3
Vz
Pz(N/m2)
9.2
39
1.06
0.670
27.69
460.3
29.2
39
1.06
0.787
32.52
634.8
49.2
39
1.06
0.848
35.04
736.7
69.2
39
1.06
0.877
36.25
788.4
89.2
39
1.06
0.905
37.40
839.6
108.475
39
1.06
0.925
38.31
880.7
134.33
39
1.06
0.947
39.16
920.5
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 41

Table 6.9: Results of variation of hourly mean wind speed with height for CT 2
Height
Vb
K1
K2
K3
Vz
Pz(N/m2)
8.74
39
1.06
0.670
27.698
460.3
28.74
39
1.06
0.785
32.450
631.8
48.74
39
1.06
0.846
34.983
734.3
68.74
39
1.06
0.876
36.224
787.3
88.74
39
1.06
0.904
37.381
838.4
105.55
39
1.06
0.924
38.216
876.3
127.585
39
1.06
0.942
38.945
910.0
Table 6.10: Results of variation of hourly mean wind speed with height CT 3
Height
Vb
K1
K2
K3
Vz
Pz(N/m2)
9.66
39
1.06
0.670
27.698
460.3
29.66
39
1.06
0.789
32.602
637.7
49.66
39
1.06
0.850
35.119
740.0
69.66
39
1.06
0.878
36.277
789.6
89.66
39
1.06
0.906
37.434
840.8
109.66
39
1.06
0.928
38.352
882.5
121.39
39
1.06
0.937
38.740
900.5
141.1
39
1.06
0.953
39.392
931.0
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 42

Along wind load along wind load on a structure on a strip area (Ae) at any height (z) if
given by:
Fz= Cf Ae Pz G (6.5)
Where
Fz = along wind load on the structure at any height z corresponding to strip area Ae
Cf = Force coefficient for the building
Ae = Effective frontal area considered for the structure at height z
Pz = Design pressure at height z due to hourly mean wind obtained as 0.6* (Vz) 2 (N/m2)
G = Gust factor (peak load/mean load) and is given by
. (6.6)
Where
gf = peak factor defined as the ratio of the expected peak value to the root mean value of
afluctuating load, and
r = roughness factor which is dependent on the size of the structure in relation to the ground
roughness.
The, value of gf r is given in Fig. 1,
B = background factor indicating a measure of slowly varying component of fluctuating
wind load and is obtained from, from fig 9, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987
SE/ = measure of the resonant component of the fluctuating wind load,
S = size reduction factor, from fig 10, pp 51 IS 875 (part 3)-1987
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 43

E = measure of available energy in the wind stream at the natural frequency of the structure,
from fig 11, pp52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987
= damping coefficient (as a fraction of critical damping) of the structure , from table 34
pp52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987
= And is to be accounted only for buildings less than 75 m high in terrain Category 4 and
for buildings .less than 25 m high in terrain Category 3, and is to be taken as zero in all other
cases.
as per clause 8.3,pg52,IS-875(part3):1987

Where, Cy= Lateral correlation constant which may be taken as 10 in the absence of more
precise load data,
Cz = longitudinal correlation constant which may be taken as 12 in the absence of more
precise load data,
b = breadth of a structure normal to the wind stream
h= height of a structure,
Vb = hourly mean wind speed at height t,
fo = natural frequency of the structure, and
Lh = a measure of turbulence length scale.
GUST FACTOR AND WIND PRESSURE CALCULATIONS:
1. CT 1: Bellary thermal power plant as reference tower.
Cy =10, as per clause 8.3, pp 52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
Cz =12m, as per clause 8.3, pp 52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
Lh = 1700, from fig 8, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 44

gfr = 0.85, from fig 8, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
fo = natural frequency = 0.8210858, as per clause 7, pp48, IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
Damping Value () = 0.016, as per table 34, pp52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
Table 6.11: Gust factor results for CT 1
Fo
Cz x h/
Lh
fo x Lh/
Vz
SE/
GF
0.1
1.886
9.2
103.6 9.4
3.24
0.04
0.065
0.71 0.1791
49.84
0.04
29.2
90.4
2.6
8.75
0.041
0.206
0.7
0.1778
42.44
0.042 0.107 1.883
49.2
78.7
1.3 13.68 0.044
0.347
0.7
0.1778
39.39
0.045 0.123 1.889
69.2
69.3
0.8
89.2
63
108.47
134.33
18.6
0.045
0.488
0.68 0.1752
38.08
0.047 0.132
1.88
0.6 23.24
0.03
0.63
0.65 0.1713
36.9
0.048
1.842
61.9
0.5 27.59 0.025
0.766
0.61
0.166
36.03
0.048 0.075 1.808
63.7
0.4 33.42
0.948
0.61
0.166
35.24
0.05
0.03
0.09
0.093 1.817
Table 6.12: ANSYS input wind pressure results for CT1

F(N/mm2)
Degrees
Height (m)
()
9.2
29.2
49.2
69.2
89.2
108.475
134.33
0.000434
0.00023
0.000278
0.000296
0.000773
0.000319
0.000334
15
0.00026
0.000464
30
-0.00035
-0.00084
-0.00097
-0.00104
-0.00062
-0.00111
-0.00117
45
-0.00104
-0.00179
-0.00209
-0.00222
-0.00186
-0.00239
-0.00251
60
-0.00148
-0.00239
-0.00278
-0.00296
-0.00263
-0.00319
-0.00334
75
-0.00182
-0.00287
-0.00334
-0.00356
-0.00325
-0.00382
-0.00401
90
-0.00191
-0.00299
-0.00348
-0.00371
-0.0034
-0.00398
-0.00418
105
-0.00148
-0.00239
-0.00278
-0.00296
-0.00263
-0.00319
-0.00334
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 45

120
-0.00061
-0.0012
-0.00139
-0.00148
-0.00108
-0.00159
-0.00167
135
-0.00087
-0.00155
-0.00181
-0.00193
-0.0015
-0.00207
-0.00217
150
-0.00078
-0.00143
-0.00167
-0.00178
-0.00139
-0.00191
-0.00201
165
-0.00078
-0.00143
-0.00167
-0.00178
-0.00139
-0.00191
-0.00201
180
-0.00078
-0.00143
-0.00167
-0.00178
-0.00139
-0.00191
-0.00201
2. CT 2: Decrease the dimensions & increase the thickness of cooling tower

Cy =10, as per clause 8.3, pp 52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
Cz =12, as per clause 8.3, pp 52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
L h = 1600, from fig 8, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
Gfr = 0.9, from fig 8, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
fo = natural frequency = 0.833182481, as per clause 7, pp48, IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
Damping Value () = 0.016, as per table 34, pp52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987.
Fo
Cz x h/
Lh
fo x Lh/
Vz
8.74
104.5
10
3.15
0.045
0.066
0.72 0.1909
48.12
0.04
28.74
82.6
2.4
8.85
0.04
0.216
0.71 0.1896
41.07
0.045 0.112 1.951
48.74
73.7
1.3 13.93 0.051
0.366
0.7
0.1882
38.10
0.046 0.146 1.959
68.74
64.6
0.8 18.97 0.045
0.516
0.69 0.1869
36.79
0.047 0.132 1.946
88.74
59
0.6 23.73
0.03
0.666
0.65 0.1814
35.65
0.049 0.091 1.900
105.55
58.8
0.5 27.61 0.027
0.792
0.62 0.1772
34.87
0.05
0.084 1.874
127.58
60.5
0.4 32.75 0.032
0.957
0.60 0.1743
34.22
0.05
0.10
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
SE/
GF
0.112 1.958
1.867
Page 46

Table 6.14: ANSYS input wind pressure results for CT 2
F(N/mm2)
Degrees
Height
()
8.74
0.000451
15
0.00027
30
-0.00108
45
68.74
88.74
105.55
127.585
0.000306
0.000319
0.000328
0.00034
-0.00086
-0.00101
-0.00107
-0.00111
-0.00115
-0.00119
-0.00153
-0.00185
-0.00216
-0.0023
-0.00239
-0.00246
-0.00255
60
-0.00189
-0.00247
-0.00288
-0.00306
-0.00319
-0.00328
-0.0034
75
-0.00198
-0.00296
-0.00345
-0.00368
-0.00382
-0.00394
-0.00408
90
-0.00153
-0.00308
-0.0036
-0.00383
-0.00398
-0.00411
-0.00425
105
-0.0009
-0.00246
-0.00287
-0.00306
-0.00318
-0.00328
-0.00339
120
-0.00063
-0.00161
-0.00187
-0.00199
-0.00207
-0.00214
-0.00221
135
-0.00081
-0.00123
-0.00144
-0.00153
-0.00159
-0.00164
-0.0017
150
-0.00081
-0.00148
-0.00173
-0.00184
-0.00191
-0.00197
-0.00204
165
-0.00081
-0.00148
-0.00173
-0.00184
-0.00191
-0.00197
-0.00204
180
-0.00081
-0.00148
-0.00173
-0.00184
-0.00191
-0.00197
-0.00204
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
28.74
48.74
0.000247 0.000288
Page 47

3. CT 3: Increase the dimensions & decrease the thickness of cooling tower.
Cy =10, as per table 34, pp52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987
Cz =12, as per clause 7, pp48, IS 875 (part 3)-1987
L h = 1750, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987
Gfr = 0.82, from fig 8, pp50 IS 875 (part 3)-1987
fo = natural frequency = 0.7925409, as per clause 8.3, pp 52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987
Damping Value () = 0.016, as per clause 8.3, pp 52 IS 875 (part 3)-1987
H
9.66
29.66
49.66
69.66
89.66
109.6
121.9
141.1
b
108.
9
95.6
83.9
74.1
67.2
64.2
64.9
66.9
Fo
Cz x h/
Lh
fo x Lh/
Vz
SE/
GF
9.4
2.7
1.4
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
3.3
8.7
13.4
18.3
22.8
27.2
24.8
34.1
0.049
0.04
0.045
0.039
0.035
0.03
0.032
0.25
0.06
0.2
0.34
0.47
0.61
0.75
0.69
0.96
0.71
0.69
0.69
0.68
0.65
0.62
0.62
0.61
0.1727
0.1703
0.1703
0.169
0.1653
0.1614
0.1614
0.1601
50.07
42.54
39.49
38.23
37.05
36.16
35.8
35.2
0.039
0.041
0.045
0.046
0.047
0.047
0.049
0.049
0.11
0.1
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.08
0.09
0.76
1.858
1.839
1.849
1.837
1.814
1.788
1.793
2.033
Table 6.16: ANSYS input wind pressure results for CT 3

F(N/mm2)
Degrees
()
Height (M)
9.66
29.66
49.66
69.66
89.66
109.66
121.39
141.1
0.00029
0.00030
0.000316
0.00032
0.00037
0.000428 0.000235 0.000274
15
0.000257
30
-0.00034
-0.00082
-0.00096
-0.00107
-0.0010
-0.0011
-0.0011
-0.0013
45
-0.00103
-0.00176
-0.00205
-0.00218
-0.0022
-0.00237
-0.00242
-0.0028
60
-0.00145
-0.00235
-0.00274
-0.0029
-0.0030
-0.00316
-0.00323
-0.0379
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 48

75
-0.0018
-0.00282
-0.00328
-0.00348
-0.0036
-0.00379
-0.00387
-0.0045
90
-0.00188
-0.00293
-0.00342
-0.00363
-0.0038
-0.00395
-0.00404
-0.0047
105
-0.00145
-0.00234
-0.00273
-0.00290
-0.0030
-0.00315
-0.00322
-0.0037
120
-0.00086
-0.00152
-0.00178
-0.00189
-0.0019
-0.00205
-0.0021
-0.0024
135
-0.0006
-0.00117
-0.00137
-0.00145
-0.0015
-0.00158
-0.00161
-0.0018
150
-0.00077
-0.00141
-0.00164
-0.00174
-0.0018
-0.00189
-0.00194
-0.0022
165
-0.00077
-0.00141
-0.00164
-0.00174
-0.0018
-0.00189
-0.00194
-0.0022
180
-0.00077
-0.00141
-0.00164
-0.00174
-0.0018
-0.00189
-0.00194
-0.0022
6.4 ANALYSIS STEPS INVOLVED IN FINITE ELEMENT

MODELLING:
6.4.1 PREPROCESSING: DEFINING THE PROBLEM
1. Give example a Title
Utility Menu > File > Change Title ...
/title, CT
2. Create Key points

Preprocessor > Modeling > Create > Key points > In Active CS
3. Define Lines
Preprocessor > Modeling > Create > Lines > Lines > splines Line
4. Symmetrical model
Preprocessor> Modeling>Operate>Extrude>line>About Axis
5. Define Element Types
For modeling we have used 8 noded shell93.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 49

6.4.2 DEFINE REAL CONSTANT

Preprocessor > Real Constants... > Add...
6.4.3 DEFINE ELEMENT MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Preprocessor > Material Props > Material Models > Structural >
Linear > Elastic > Isotropic
In the window that appears, enter the following geometric properties
Young's modulus EX:
Poisson's Ratio PRXY:
Density:
6.4.4 MESH
1. Define Mesh Size
Preprocessor > Meshing > Manual Size > Size Controls > Lines > picked Lines...
2. Mesh the frame
Preprocessor > Meshing > Mesh > Area > click 'Pick All'.
6.4.5 SOLUTION: ASSIGNING LOADS & SOLVING

1. Define Analysis Type
For Static analysis:
Solution > New Analysis > Static
For Modal analysis:
Solution > New Analysis > modal
For Spectrum analysis:
Solution > New Analysis > spectrum
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 50

2. Apply Constraints
Solution > Define Loads > Apply > Structural > Displacement > On Nodes
3. Apply Loads
Solution > Define Loads > Apply > Structural > Force/Moment > Inertia
force> Gravity> Global
4. Apply Pressure
Solution > Define Loads > Apply > Structural > Pressure > Elements
5. Solve the System
Solution > Solve > Current LS
6.4.6 GENEREL POSTPROCESSING: VIEWING THE RESULTS

1. To view the element in 3D rather than a line:
Utility Menu > Plot Ctrls > Style > Size and Shape
2. View the deflection contour plot.
3. View the stress and strain in contour plot
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 51

CHAPTER-7
TABULATION AND RESULTS:

1. CT 1: Reference cooling tower.
2. CT 2: Decrease the Dimensions of cooling tower & Increase the thickness.
3. CT 3: Increase the Dimension of cooling tower & Decrease the thickness.
7.1 STATIC ANALYSIS:

Creating geometric model:
Fig 7.1: Key points to create CT model
Fig 7.3 Boundary condition
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Fig 7.2: Geometric model
Fig 7.4: Thickness of rcc shell
Page 52

Fig 7.5: Element number in model
Fig 7.6: Nodes number in model
Static analysis:
First we create the geometry of the model in ANSYS by using key points & we have to input
material models, shell element & make mesh to model in Preprocessor. By assigning the
loads to the model and selecting Static analysis and solve the problem in solution & read the
results in General post processor.
Fig 7.7: Deflection for CT 1
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 53

Fig 7.8: Principal stress for CT 1
Fig 7.10: Von mises stress for CT 1
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Fig 7.9: Principal strain for CT 1
Fig 7.11: Von mises strain for CT 1
Page 54

Table 7.1: Static Analysis results

Series
Max
Deflection
(mm)
Max Principal
Stress
Strain
(mpa)
Max Von Mises

Stress
Strain
(mpa)
CT 1
6.828
0.049038
0.162 x10-4
2.716
0.859 x10-4
CT 2
6.079
0.05455
0.146 x10-4
2.521
0.796 x10-4
CT 3
7.032
0.063227
0.157 x10-4
2.651
0.838 x10-4
7.2 MODAL ANALYSIS: First we create the geometry of the model in ANSYS by
using key points & we have to input material models, shell element & make mesh to model
in Preprocessor. By assigning the loads to the model and selecting Modal analysis, giving
number of modes to extract as 50 frequencies and solve the problem in solution & read the
results in General post processor.
Fig 7.12: Deflection in mode 1@ Freq 1.022 for CT 1
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 55

Fig 7.13: Von mises stress in mode 1

@ freq. 1.022 for CT 1
Fig 7.14: Von mises strain in mode 1

Fig 7.15: Principal stress in mode 1

Fig 7.16: Principal strain in mode 1

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 56

Table 7.2: Modal analysis results
Series
Mode
Freq
Max
(HZ)
Deflection
Stress
(mm)
(mpa)
Max Principal
Strain
Max Von Mises

Stress
Strain
(mpa)
1.022
0.02515
0.002972
0.941 x10-7
0.00298
0.943 x10-7
1.137
0.026128
0.001849
0.582 x10-7
0.001824
0.577 x10-7
0.8076
0.026254
0.00146
0.446 x10-7
0.001394
0.441 x10-7
CT1
CT2
CT3
7.3 RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS:

First we create the geometry of the model in ANSYS by using key points & we have to input
material models, shell element & make mesh to model in Pre processor. By assigning the
loads to the model and before doing Spectrum analysis first we to do Modal analysis, after
we have to select the spectrum analysis & apply all input datas such as frequencies, seismic
co-efficient, SRSS method and solve the problem in solution & read the results in General
post processor.
7.3.1 RESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS FOR 0.5g:
Fig 7.17: Deflection @ 0.5g for CT 1
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 57

Fig 7.18: Principal stress @ 0.5g for CT 1
Fig 7.20: Von mises stress @ 0.5g for CT 1
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Fig 7.19: Principal strain @ 0.5g for CT 1
Fig 7.21: Von mises strain @ 0.5g for CT 1
Page 58

Table 7.3: Response spectrum analysis results for 0.5g

Series
Max
Max Principal
Deflection
(mm)
Stress
Max Von Mises
Strain
Stress
(mpa)
Strain
(mpa)
CT 1
6.523
0.613682
0.195x10-4
0.609945
0.193 x10-14
CT 2
5.902
0.578328
0.183x10-4
0.589108
0.186 x10-14
CT 3
0.119x10-8
0.231 x10-9
0.705x10-14
0.220 x10-9
0.695 10-14
Figure 7.22: Deflection @ 0.6g for CT1
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 59

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 60

Series
Max
Max Principal
Deflection
(mm)
Stress
Max Von Mises
Strain
Stress
(mpa)
Strain
(mpa)
-4
0.773432
0.245 x10-4
CT 1
8.547
0.756417
0.224x10
CT 2
7.083
0.693995
0.220x10-4
0.706931
0.224 x10-4
CT 3
0.143x10-8
0.277x10-9
0.845x10-14
0.254x10-9
0.834 10-14
Figure 7.27: Deflection @ 0.7g for CT1
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 61

DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 62


Series
Max
Max Principal
Deflection
(mm)
Stress
Strain
(mpa)
Max Von Mises

Stress
Strain
(mpa)
CT 1
9.971
0.882172
0.284x10-4
0.902337
0.285 x10-4
CT 2
8.263
0.809658
0.256x10-4
0.824752
0.261 x10-4
CT 3
0.143x10-8
0.323x10-9
0.986x10-14
0.307x10-9
0.973 x10-14
7.4 WIND ANALYSIS: First we create the geometry of the model in ANSYS by using
key points & we have to input material models, shell element & make mesh to model in Pre
processor. By assigning the loads and input the Pressures, alongside to the model and solve
the problem in solution & read the results in General post processor.
Fig7.32: Applied Wind Pressure for CT 1
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 63

Fig 7.33: Deflection for CT 1
Fig 7.34: Principal stress for CT 1
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Fig 7.35: Principal strain for CT 1
Page 64

Fig 7.36: Von mises stress for CT 1
Fig 7.37: Von mises strain for CT 1
Table 7.6: Wind load analysis results

Series
Max
Deflection
(mm)
Max Principal
Stress
Max Von Mises
Strain
Stress
(mpa)
Strain
(mpa)
CT 1
32.715
2.015
0.640 x10
5.186
0.164 x10-3
CT 2
23.922
1.925
0.421x10-4
4.521
0.146 x10-3
CT 3
57.295
2.59
0.804x10-4
5.32
0.157 x10-3
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
-4
Page 65

CHAPTER-8
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS:

The main aim of analysis works on CT as follows. In the present study FEA of 3CT viz CT1,
CT2, CT3 has been carried out to evaluate deflection, Principle stress & strain, Von mises
stress & strain.
1) If dimension is less, deflection is also less and if dimension is more, deflection also
more.
2) The deflection in static analysis is least for CT2 comparssion to CT1 and CT3.
3) The principal stresses in static analysis i.e. (self weight) are observed to be less for
CT1 then CT2 & CT 3.
4) In the free vibration analysis it has been observed the deflection is least for CT1
compare to CT2 and CT3 & principal stress will be least for CT3 compare to CT 1 &
CT2.
5) It is evident from the seismic analysis. The principal stress observed to be least for
CT2 & CT3 comparssion to reference tower CT1.
6) It is evident from the seismic analysis that the deflection is the least in CT2 & CT3
compare to reference tower CT1.
7) It is evident from the wind load analysis that the deflection is the least in CT2
compare to CT1 & CT3.
8) It is evident from the wind load analysis the principal stress is least in CT2 compare
to the CT1 & CT3
9) It is evident from CT2 is subjected to lesser principal stress and deflection in wind
load analysis.
10) It is evident from CT3 is subjected to lesser principal stress and deflection in seismic
analysis.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 66

CHAPTER-9
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES:

1) Thermal stress will not been considered for this project, it will be done in future with
the help of mechanical engineers
2) Non linear analysis will also be applied to the above studies.
3) Time history analysis also has to be done for the earthquake analysis for above
cooling tower.
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 67

REFERNCES:
1) G. Murali, C. M. Vivek Vardhan and B. V. Prasanth Kumar ReddyRESPONSE OF
COOLING TOWERS TO WIND LOADS, ARPN Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences
2) D. Makovika, Response Analysis of RC cooling tower under seismic and wind storm
effect, Acta Polytechnica Vol. 46 No. 6/2006.
3) A. M. El Ansary, A. A. El Damatty, and A. O. Nassef, Optimum Shape and Design of
Cooling Towers, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 60 2011.
4) R.L. Norton & v.i Weingarten, the effect of asymmetric imperfections on the earth
quake response of hyperbolic cooling towers.
5) Shailesh S. Angalekar, Dr. A. B. Kulkarni, Analysis of natural draught hyperbolic
cooling tower by finite element method using equivalent plate method.
6) Yang T. Y., Shell Elements for Cooling Tower Analysis, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, Vol. 109/5, Sep., 1983, pp. 1270-1289.
7) Esmaeil Asadzadeh,Finite element analysis for structural Response of cooling tower
shell considering alternative supporting systems,IJCIET, Volume 3, Issue 1, JanuaryJune (2012), pp. 82-98
8) Saeid Sabouri-Ghomi , Numerical study of the Nonlinear Dynamic behavior of RCC
towers under Earthquake Excitation,Received: 8 September 2005; Received revised
form: 17 January 2006; Accepted: 17 January 2006.
9) Prof. Oral Buyukozturk, 1.054/1.541 Mechanics and Design of Concrete Structures.
10) Dynamic of structures by Anil K Chopra.
11) Design of reinforced concrete shells and folded plates by P.C. Varghese.
12) Advance reinforced concrete design by kirshnaraju.
13) IS: 11504:1985., Criteria for structural design of reinforced concrete natural draught
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 68

14) IS: 875 (Part3):1987. Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake loads)
15) IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 Criteria for earthquake resistant design structure.
16) www.google.com
17) www.ASCE.com
DEPT. OF CIVIL, GCE
Page 69
International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Development (IJETED)

ISSN NO.:2249-6149 [impact factor = 4.55{2011}
url : journals.indexcopernicus.com/passport.php?id=6722]
http://www.rspublication.com/ijeted/ijeted_index.htm IJETED is now indexed in: Google
scolar, Nasa(usa), microsoft academic search, science central, cabell directories( usa) ,
EBSCO (USA), Research gate, Academia.edu, SCIRUS, Index Copernicus,
DOAJ, Open J Gate, Electronic Journal Library, New Jour, Science central.com, Ulrichs
Web, Dayang Journal System and many more under process)
Manuscript Acceptance Letter

Title: TO STUDY THE EFFECT OF SEISMIC LOADS ON
HYPERBOLIC COOLING TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSION AND RCC
SHELL THICKNESS.
Edition :( Issue 3, Vol. 4) 30 July
Dear Author,
We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript is accepted for
publication in next edition of IJETED. Your paper is peer reviewed by our expert
panel and they found
Review sheet: General judgments
S.N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judgment criteria
Is the subject of the article within the scope of the journal?
Are the interpretations and conclusions sound and justified by the data?
Is this a new and original contribution?
Does the title of this paper clearly and sufficiently reflect its contents?
Are the presentation, organization and length satisfactory?
Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts?
Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable?
Are the references adequate and accurate, and are they all necessary
Are the keywords and abstracts/summary informative?
Is the quality of the English language satisfactory?
Please assess scientific quality
Code of Ethics: Authors are responsible for their research work carried out, presentation and results expressed.
Editor-in-Chief, Editors and Editorial Board does not claim any responsibility, liability of statements made and
opinion expressed by authors. Editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the matter published
herein. So be careful and aware when you finalize your manuscript
With Regards
Publishing Manager
International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Development
Comment
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Satisfactory
TO STUDY THE EFFECT OF SEISMIC LOADS AND WIND LOAD ON

HYPERBOLIC COOLING TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND RCC
SHELL THICKNESS.
Prasahanth N1, Sayeed sulaiman2
1.
2.
PG Student, Dept. of Civil Engg., Ghousia College of Engineering, Ramanagaram- 562159

Asst Professor, Dept. of Civil Engg., Ghousia College of Engineering, Ramanagaram- 562159
ABSTRACT:
Natural draught cooling towers are very common in modern day thermal and nuclear
power stations. These towers with very small shell thickness are exceptional structures by
their shear size and sensitivity to horizontal loads. This paper deals with study of
hyperbolic cooling tower of varying dimensions and rcc shell thickness, for the purpose of
comparison a existing tower is consider, for other models of cooling tower the dimensions
and thickness of rcc shell is varied with respect to reference cooling tower. The boundary
conditions should be consider as been top end free and bottom end is fixed. The material
properties of the cooling tower have young modulus 31GPa, poission Ratio 0.15 and
density of rcc 25 Kg/m3.These cooling towers have been analyzed for seismic loads &
wind load using Finite Element Analysis. The seismic load will be carried out for 0.5g,
0.6g& 0.7g in accordance with IS: 1893 (part 1)-2002 and by modal analysis and wind
loads on these cooling towers have been calculated in the form of pressures by using the
design wind pressure coefficients as given in IS: 11504-1985 code along with the design
wind pressures at different levels as per IS: 875 (Part 3) - 1987 code. The analysis has
been carried out using 8-noded 93 Shell Element. The outcome of the analysis is max
deflection, max principal stress & strain, max von mises stress & strain.
Keywords: Cooling tower, FEA, Seismic analysis & wind analysis.
1. INTRODUCTION:
The natural draught cooling tower is a very important and essential component in the
thermal and nuclear power stations. These are huge structures and also show thin shell
structures. Cooling towers are subjected to its self-weight and the dynamic load such as
an earthquake motion and a wind effects. In the absence of earthquake loading, wind
constitutes the main loading for the design of natural draught cooling towers. A lot of
research work was reported in the literature on the seismic &wind load on cooling tower [1
to 5].
G. Murali et al., [1] Response of cooling tower to wind load. He studied the two cooling
towers of 122m and 200m high above ground level. They calculated the values like
meridional forces and bending moments. D.Makovika, Acta Polytechnica [2], Studied
Response Analysis of an RC Cooling Tower under Seismic and Windstorm Effects. The
calculated values of the envelopes of the displacements and the internal forces due to
seismic loading states are compared with the envelopes of the loading states due to the
dead, operational and live loads, wind and temperature actions. Finite element model is
established; then mechanical characters of the tower under gravity, temperature load and
wind loads are analyzed. A. M. El Ansary [3], Optimum shape and design of cooling
tower, study is to develop a numerical tool that is capable of achieving an optimum shape
And design of hyperbolic cooling towers based on coupling a non-linear finite element
model developed in-house and a genetic algorithm optimization technique. R.L.Norton
[4], studied the effect of asymmetric imperfection on the earth quake response of
hyperbolic cooling tower. Shailesh S[5], software package utilized towards a practical
application by considering problem of natural draught hyperbolic cooling towers. The
main interest is to demonstrate that the column supports to the tower could be replaced by
equivalent shell elements so that the software developed could easily be utilized.
2. Description of the Geometry of the Tower:

For the purposes of comparison, an existing tower Bellary thermal power station
(BTPS) is located in Kudatini Village, Bellary Dist, and Karnataka State, India, is
considered in the current study as the reference design tower. The total height of the
tower is 143.5 m. As shown in Fig. 1, the tower has a base, throat and top radii of 55 m,
30.5 m and 31.85 m, respectively, with the throat located 107.75 m above the base.
The geometry of the Hyperboloid revolution:
In which Ro is the horizontal radius at any vertical coordinate, Y with the origin of
coordinates being defined by the center of the tower throat, ao is the radius of the throat,
and b is some characteristic dimension of the hyperboloid.
Rt=31.8
35.75
Rthr=30.
5
143.5
107.75
98.55
9.2
X
Rb=55
Figure 1: Geometry of BTPS
Table 1: Geometric details of cooling tower

SI
no
Description Parameters
Parametric value
CT1
(Reference )
CT2
(Decreased)
CT3
(Increased)
Total height, H
143.5 m
136.2 m
150.67 m
Height of throat, Hthr
107.75 m
102.36 m
113.13 m
Diameter at top, Dt
63.6 m
60.5 m
66.8 m
Diameter at bottom, Db
110 m
104.5 m
115.5 m
Diameter at throat, Dthr
61 m
57.94 m
64 m
Thickness at thoart, Tthr
200 mm
250 mm
150 mm
Column Height
9.2 m
8.74 m
9.66 m
3.
Earthquake Forces:
The seismic analysis will be carried out in accordance with IS: 1893 by modal analysis of
the hyperbolic cooling towers, the earthquake analysis of the shell will be carried out by
response spectrum method. Earthquake analysis for the fill supporting structures (RCC
frames) will be carried out by response spectrum method. For the Calculation of the
Design Spectrum, the following Factors were considered as per IS 1893 (part I) 2002.
Zone factor: For Zone III = 0.16
Importance factor (I)
= 1.00
Response reduction factor (R) = 3.00
Average response acceleration coefficient Sa/g =Soft soil site condition.
The design horizontal seismic coefficient Ah for 0.5g, 0.6g & 0.7g of a structure shall be
determined by the following expression: Maximum considered Earthquake (MCE)
of 2% probability.
4.
Wind loads:
The wind pressure at a given height [Pz] will be computed as per the stipulations of
IS: 875 (part 3)-1987. For computing the design wind pressure at a given height the
basic wind speed (Vb) will be taken as Vb=39 m/s at 9.2m height above mean ground
level. For computing design wind speed (Vz) at a height z, the risk coefficient
K1=1.06 will be considered. For coefficient K2 terrain category 2 as per table 2 of IS:
875 (part-3)-1987 will be considered. The wind direction for design purpose will be
the one which world induces worst load condition. Coefficient K3 will be 1 for the
tower under consideration. The wind pressure at a given height wills b e computed
theoretically in accordance to the IS codal provision given as under:
Pz = 0.6 Vz2 N/m2
Where Vz =Vb x K1 x K2 x k3
Computation of wind pressure (Pz) along the wind direction by Gust factor method
5. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING:
Due to the complexity of the material properties, the boundary conditions and the tower
structure, finite element analysis is adopted. The finite element analysis of the cooling
towers has been carried out using ANSYS V.10. The analysis has been carried out using
8-noded shell element (SHELL 93). In the present study, only shell portion of the cooling
towers has been modelled and fixity has been assumed at the base.
5.1
ANSYSV.10:
ANSYS is a commercial FEM package having capabilities ranging from a simple,
linear, static analysis to a complex, non linear, transient dynamic analysis. It is
available in modules; each module is applicable to specific problem. Typical
ANSYS program includes 3 stages Pre processor, Solution & General Post
processor.
6. Material Properties for Analysis of CT:
Young modulus: 31Gpa.
Poisson Ratio: 0.15.
Density of Rcc: 25 KN/m3.
7. Tabulation & Results:

CT 1: BTPS as reference of cooling tower.
CT 2: Decrease the dimensions & Increase the thickness of cooling tower.
CT 3: Increase the dimension & decrease the thickness of cooling tower.
7.1 Static analysis:
Fig5: Key points
Fig8: Deflection in CT1

CT1
Fig6: Geometric model with BC
Fig9: Principal Stress in CT1
Fig7: Thickness of rcc shell
Fig10: Principal Strain in
Fig11: Von mises Stress in CT1
Fig 12: Von mises Strain in CT1
Table 2: Results of Static analysis

Series Max Deflection
(mm)
Max Principle
Stress
(mpa)
Strain
Max Von mises

Stress
(mpa)
Strain
CT 1
6.828
0.049038 0.162 x10-4
2.716
0.859x10-4
CT 2
6.079
0.054505 0.146 x10-4
2.521
0.796x10-4
CT 3
7.032
0.063277
0.157x10-4
2.651
0.838 x10-4
7.2 MODAL ANALYSIS:
Fig 13: Deflection at 1st mode @ freq 1.022

1.022
In CT1
Fig 14: Principal Stress at 1st mode @ freq

in CT1
Fig15: Principal Strain at 1st mode

Fig 16: Von mises Stress
1.022 in CT 1
1st mode @ freq 1.022 in CT 1
Fig 17: Von mises at 1st @ freq

1st mode @ freq 1.022 in CT1
Table 3: Results of Modal analysis

Series
Modes
Freq
Max
(HZ)
Deflection
Max Principal
Stress
(mm)
Max Von Mises
Strain
Stress
(mpa)
(mpa)
Strain
1.022
0.02515
0.002972
0.941 x10-7
0.00298
0.943 x10-7
1.305
0.024832
0.001647
0.521 x10-7
0.001652
0.523 x10-7
10
1.512
0.01977
0.001328
0.415 x10-7
0.001303
0.412 x10-7
1.137
0.026128
0.001849
0.582 x10-7
0.001824
0.577 x10-7
1.49
0.020358
0.001381
0.434 x10-7
0.001355
0.429 x10-7
10
1.67
0.021157
0.002332
0.732 x10-7
0.002277
0.194 x10-8
0.8076
0.026254
0.00146
0.446 x10-7
0.001394
0.441 x10-7
0.9904
0.025641
0.002206
0.665 x10-7
0.002014
0.637 x10-7
10
1.189
0.020245
0.002329
0.705 x10-7
0.00212
0.671 x10-7
CT1
CT2
CT3
7.3 Response Spectra Analysis: 0.5g, 0.6g & 0.7g
Fig18: Deflection at 0.5g, CT1

Strain
Fig21: Principal Stress

at 0.5g, CT1
Fig19: Von mises Stress

at 0.5g, CT1
Fig20: Von mises

at 0.5g, CT1
Fig22: Principal Strain

at 0.5g, CT1
Table 4: Results of Response Spectrum Analysis: 0.5g

(mm)
Max Principle
Max Von mises
Stress
(mpa)
Strain
Stress
(mpa)
Strain
CT 1
6.523
0.613682
0.195 x10-4
0.609945
0.193 x10-4
CT 2
5.902
0.578328
0.183 x10-4
0.589108
0.186 x10-4
CT 3
0.119 x10-8
0.231 x10-9 0.705 x10-14 0.220 x10-9 0.695 x10-14

(mm)
Max Principle
Max Von mises
Stress
(mpa)
Strain
Stress
(mpa)
Strain
CT 1
8.547
0.756147
0.244 x10-4
0.773432
0.245 x10-4
CT 2
7.083
0.693995
0.220 x10-4
0.706931
0.224 x10-4
CT 3
0.143 x10-8
0.277 x10-9 0.845 x10-14 0.254 x10-9 0.834 x10-14

Series
Max
Deflection
(mm)
Max Principle
Max Von mises
Stress
(mpa)
Strain
Stress
(mpa)
Strain
CT 1
9.971
0.882172
0.284 x10-4
0.902337
0.285 x10-4
CT 2
8.263
0.809658
0.256 x10-4
0.824752
0.261 x10-4
CT 3
0.167 x10-8
0.323 x10-9
0986 x10-14
0.307 x10-9
0.973 x10-14
7.4 Wind Analysis:
Fig23: Wind pressure applied
Fig 24: Deflection for CT1
Fig25: Principal Stress for CT1
Fig26: Principal Strain for CT1 Fig27: Von mises Stress for CT1 Fig28: Von mises Strain for CT1
Table 7: Results of Wind analysis

Series Max Deflection Max Principle
(mm)
Stress Strain
(mpa)
Max Von mises

Stress Strain
(mpa)
CT 1
32.715
2.015
0.640x10-4
5.186
0.164 x10-3
CT 2
23.922
1.295
0.421 x10-4 4.521
0.146 x10-3
CT 3
57.295
2.59
0.804 x10-4 5.32
0.157 x10-3
8. Conclusions:
The main aim of analysis works on CT as follows. In the present study FEA of 3CT
viz CT1, CT2, CT3 has been carried out to evaluate principle stress and strain, Von
mises stress and strain and deflection.
1) If dimension is less, deflection is also less and if dimension is more, deflection
also more.
2) The deflection in static analysis is least for CT2 comparssion to reference tower
CT1 and CT3.
3) The principal stresses in static analysis i.e. (self weight) are observed to be less for
CT2 then the reference tower CT1.
4) In the free vibration analysis it has been observed that the principal stress for the
1st mode is greater for CT1 than CT2 and CT3.
5) It is evident from the seismic analysis. The principal stress observed to be least
for CT2 & CT3 comparssion to reference tower CT1.
6) It is evident from the seismic analysis that the deflection is the least in CT2 &
CT3 compare to reference tower CT1.
7) It is evident from the wind load analysis that the deflection is the least in CT2.
&principal stress is least in CT2 compare to the reference tower CT1and CT3.
9. Future to scope:
Thermal stress will not been considered for this project, it will be done in
future with the help of mechanical engineers
Non linear analysis will also be applied to the above studies.
10. References:
1) G. Murali, C. M. Vivek Vardhan and B. V. Prasanth Kumar ReddyRESPONSE
OF COOLING TOWERS TO WIND LOADS, ARPN Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences
2) D. Makovika, Response Analysis of RC cooling tower under seismic and wind
storm effect, Acta Polytechnica Vol. 46 No. 6/2006.
3) A. M. El Ansary, A. A. El Damatty, and A. O. Nassef, Optimum Shape and
Design of Cooling Towers, World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology 60 2011.
4) R.L.Norton, & v.i Weingarten, the effect of asymmetric imperfections on the earth
quake response of hyperbolic cooling towers.
5) Shailesh S. Angalekar, Dr. A. B. Kulkarni, Analysis of natural draught hyperbolic
cooling tower by finite element method using equivalent plate method.
6) IS: 11504:1985, Criteria for structural design of reinforced concrete natural
draught cooling tower, New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian standards.
7) IS: 875 (Part3):1987, Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake
loads) for buildings and structures. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
8) IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 Criteria for earthquake resistant design structure

Study The Effects of Seismic and Wind Loads On Hyperbolic Cooling Tower

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Study The Effects of Seismic and Wind Loads On Hyperbolic Cooling Tower

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TO STUDY THE EFFECT OF SEISMIC AND WIND LOADS ON

HYPERBOLIC COOLING TOWER OF VARYING DIMENSIONS AND

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CHAPTER-I: INTRODUCTION OF COOLING TOWER

1.2 Types of cooling tower

1.3 Component of natural draft cooling tower

1.4 Cooling tower materials

1.5 IS11504-1985 Recommendation

1.6 Advantage of cooling tower

1.7 Details of Bellary thermal power plant

1.9 Origination of Thesis

CHAPTER-II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2 Review of hyperbolic cooling tower

CHAPTER-III: ANALYSIS OF RCC SHELL

3.2 Reinforced Concrete Thin Shell Structure

3.3 Classification of Shell

CHAPTER-IV: INTRODUCTION TO FEM PACKAGE USED ANSYS

4.2 Materials Models

4.3 Element Library

4.4 Procedure Library

4.5 FEA Program

CHAPTER-V: ELEMENT USED FOR ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT

5.2 Shell 93: Input Data

5.3 Shell 93: Input Summary

5.4 Shell 93: Assumption & Restriction

CHAPTER-VI: ANALYSIS PROCEDURE & CALCULATIONS

6.2 Earthquake forces

6.3 Wind load

6.4 Analysis steps involved in finite Element Modeling

CHAPTER-VII: TABULATION AND RESULTS

7.2 Modal analysis

7.3 Response spectrum analysis

7.4 Wind analysis

CHAPTER-VIII: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

CHAPTER-IX: RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE STUDIES

APPENDIX A- JOURNAL PAPER

Table 6.1: Geometric details of hyperbolic cooling tower

Table 6.5: Design spectrum for 0.5g

Table 6.6: Design spectrum for 0.6g

Table 6.7: Design spectrum for 0.7g

Table 6.11: Gust factor calculation result for CT1

Table 6.12: ANSYS input wind pressure for CT1

Table 6.13: Gust factor calculation result for CT2

Table 6.14: ANSYS input wind pressure for CT

Table 6.15: Gust factor calculation result for CT3

Table 6.16: ANSYS input wind pressure for CT3

Table 7.1: Static analysis results

Table7.2: Modal analysis results

Table 7.3: Response spectrum analysis result for 0.5g

Table 7.4: Response spectrum analysis result for 0.6g

Table 7.5: Response spectrum analysis result for 0.7g

Table 7.4: Wind load analysis results

Fig1.2: Historical development of cooling tower

Fig1.3: Cross flow of cooling tower

Fig1.4: Counter flow of cooling tower

Fig1.5: Fabrication of supporting columns

Fig1.6: climbing construction of shell

Fig1.7: Location of BTPS

Fig3.1: Aircraft hangar, Orly, France

Fig4.1: Components of general purpose finite element analysis program

Fig4.2: ANSYS graphical user interface

Fig5.1: Shell 93: geometry