Collapse simulation of

reinforced concrete natural

draught cooling towers
W. B. Kriitzig and Y. Zhuang

Institutefor Statics and Dynamics, Ruhr-UniversityBochum, D-4630 Bochum, Germany

(Received March 1991; revised July 1991)
The collapse behaviour of reinforced concrete natural draught cooling
towers is numerically simulated under dead weight and quasistatic
wind action. Nonlinear material behaviour of the structure is modelled
within the elastoplastic fracturing theory for concrete tak!ng elastoplastic actions of the reinforcement into account. The reported collapse simulations aim primarily at the evaluation of realistic safety
factors within the framework of the Eurocode (1988) as well as the
National German Standards-BTR (1990) and at the description of the
crack evolution processes.
Keywords: natural draught cooling towers, collapse behaviour

The present research discusses the collapse behaviour of

RC natural draught cooling tower shells under large
deformations, performed under dead weight and
quasistatic wind action. The cooling towers are
modelled as multilayered shell continua with bilinear
elastoplastic reinforcement. The concrete layers are
represented by an elastoplastic fracturing model which
takes concrete softening in compression into account.
Computer simulations of reinforced concrete structures have a long tradition ~-5. A l s o a number of
earlier studies have investigated the collapse behaviour
of cooling towers modelling the reinforced concrete
shell by layered finite elements. Attention has been paid
to the work of Mang and Trappel 6 and Milford and
Schnobrich 7 which demonstrated the collapses by
cracking of the concrete shell. These earlier works,
however, left several questions open concerning the
interaction of physical nonlinearities and large deformations calling the numerical reliability of the results
achieved in question.
Numerical collapse simulations aim primarily towards
the evaluation of realistic safety factors for these structures within the framework of the Eurocodes 8 and the
National German Standards 9. Also, because the successive weakening of the structure by the crack evolution process is modelled properly collapse simulations
are likewise capable of establishing durability and
reliability predictions.

domains I, II and III concrete is macroscopically

uncracked. It exhibits cracks in one direction in the IV
domain, whereas it cracks in two directions in the V
domain.
The nonlinear behaviour of concrete in domains I, II
and III will be described below by the elastoplastic
fracturing model developed by Bazant and Kim I.
According to Figure 2, this model divides each stress
increment into three components: namely the elastic
stress increase (el), the plastic stress decrease (pl) and
the stress decrease due to microcracking (fr)

Ar o = Ar~ - Ar~- Ar~

Expressions for these three stress components can be

broken down with the help of elasticity, plasticity and
fracturing theories as follows

A r ~ = [G(aitaJk+ aikaJ') + ( K - 2

1992 Butterworth-HeinemannLtd

G) aUa'k] A%k

(2)

Ar~=

A~/tk (3)

h +G+f3[YK
I

cy

Concrete

0141-0296/92/050291-09

cy

Material modelling of reinforced concrete

The behaviour of concrete depends strongly on the state

of stress. Figure 1 shows five domains related to the
biaxial failure envelope in the principal stress plane. In

(1)

\23'

+ - - a ~j - - + - - a r k
3
23,
3
I

A3'lk

(4)

Cj~tk

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 5 291

Collapse of RC natural draught cooling towers: W. B. Kr~tzig and Y. Zhuang

rv

z zz / ec

/m

rr
i J~-I.2,/-I.0

17

[]

Ull
-0.8-0.6

__ 1:II/fc

1.0

0.8-

.o
__~ Q 6 -

-0.4 -0.2
-0.2

0.2-

-0.6o,
-0.8

Biaxial failure e n v e l o p e (Kupfer et al. 12)

1
dtp/

/'/I

/"

i
dT.el

Y
Incremental stress state :
~)
d~el

dT,pld

Elasto-plastic-fracturing model

For a detailed derivation, see Reference 10, where the

following abbreviations are introduced
a 'j contravariant metric tensor of shell
SiJ(e ij) contravariant stress (strain) deviator
r(y) square root of second invariant of stress (strain)
deviator
G, (K) elastic shear-(bulk-) modulus
~'(o~') internal (fracturing) friction-coefficient
fl, (o0 plastic (fracturing) dilatancy-factor
q5 fracturing modulus
C~ff , C~Ik, Cj~tk material tensors in shell space
The material behaviour of concrete in the hardening as
well as in the softening branches can be described quite
suitably by this model. For example, Figure 3 demonstrates its high accuracy by comparison with experimental data ~1. In Figure 1, the failure envelope according
to this model is additionally compared with experimental
results from Kupfer et al. 12

292

Eng. S t r u c t .

/'4 ~,-",-~,-",~7/~,~, /
20

50

40
-'YII

50

60

,~",
70

,=

80

(10-4)

C o n c r e t e in uniaxial cyclic c o m p r e s s i o n

To determine the crack-initiation of the concrete, a

principal tensile stress criterion is applied as
follows 13J4. When the tensile strength is reached in the
principal direction, concrete cracks perpendicularly to
the principal stress axes losing its tensile strength completely
After cracking in a given direction (domain IV), the
concrete retains load-carrying capacity in the direction
of the crack This assumption seems to be admissible in
the present research because of the low importance of
tension softening. The components of the material tensor
in the principal direction, with exception of its shear
components ~,z12, ~1221, ~2112, ~2J21 and the diagonal
component ~2222 can therefore be equated to zero The
shear components are necessary, however, for considering the influence of the remaining stiffness at the cracks
The diagonal material tensor component ~2222 is
evaluated with the help of the elastoplastic fracturing
model under an idealized uniaxial stress state
,1 = 12 = :1 = 0

(5)

A 11 = A 12 = A 21 = 0

(6)

dl:~)

Incremental stress state formulated by material tensor :

"
r/)'lm r#lm
../j/m
d'C d = (~el
- ~pl
- ~fr ' d'~lm

Figure 2

~ r ~
I0

Experimental data of
Kupfer eta/.

Figure 3

d~d ' =

f,

Plastic fracturing theory

-0.4-

Figure 1

Sinha eta/
Plastic fracturing theory /c = 3750 psi

1 9 9 2 , V o l . 14, N o 5

In case of cracking in two given directions (domain V)

concrete also loses its strength capacity in the direction
perpendicular to the second crack Also the diagonal
material tensor component ~2222 then is consequently
set to zero. Each crack can reclose, when the corresponding strain becomes smaller than the cracking strain
After closure of a crack, the concrete may again sustain
compressive stresses, but has irreversibly lost its tensile
strength in the formerly cracked direction 13'15.
Reinforcement

The reinforcement bars are modelled as smeared into

steel layers with uniaxial material properties. An
elastoplastic material law with kinematic hardening and
a suitable loading/unloading criterion according to
Figure 4 is implemented to describe the nonlinear
behaviour of the reinforcement. For cyclic loading,
changes of the yield stress due to the Bauschinger effect
are taken into account
Idealization of cracks

After crack initiation the concrete changes into a local

discontinuum. In the frame of this work, the individual
cracks are idealized simply as smeared cracks in the
environment Thus the concrete can be retained in the

Collapse of RC natural draught cooling towers: W. B. Kr~tzig and Y. Zhuang

"u

Pseudo-stress resultants
Loading

J~"

/-JE

fc(hisfory)

..-----'---"'J
"fco

/~(c'B)=lh 7(~/3d03
~--V

7"'~3d03

(7)

Stress couples

m('~) =

~ A f c dueto
~

and~=ih

Unloading

'E/

,fh ra~03d03

(8)

Bauschinger
effect

Figure 4

Elasto-plastic material law for steel, fto, yield stress in

tension; fco, yield stress in compression; Eo, E-modulus; Et,
tangent modulus of elasticity

Material tensors

EiC~f3x~= lh CCtl3h/~(03)i-1d03

following numerical modelling also in its cracked state

as a continuum-model with C0-continuity ]4.

Layered RC-shell-model and solution

algorithm

E(~B= fh C(~3/33d03

(9)

Displacement and difference vectors

v = via'

Preintegrated multilayered shell

To describe the nonlinear behaviour of the reinforced

concrete cooling tower, a multilayered shell model corresponding to Figure 5 has been developed. According
to this model, the shell continuum will be divided into
a number of individual layers with different material
properties. All layers are assumed to perform as a
whole.
In the reference surface of the shell, defined here as
the midsurface, the following mechanical quantities are
defined

(10)

w = wia'

First and second strain tensors otto, /3,~, as well as the

shear strains %
a.~ =f~(v, w), ~.~ =A(v, w), ~,. =f3(v, w)
(11)
A detailed formulation of the kinematic relations (equations 11) can be found in Basar and Kr~itzigt6.
In physically consistent shell theories, the incremental
pseudo-stress resultants a t~a), (~~ and stress couples

o3
e2
de
Reinforcement
layers e I

Reinforcement
layers e 2
Middle surface

x1

efe layers

do'

eI

x2

xI
Figure 5 Layered

shell continuum ~ , curvilinear, convected coordinates on middle surface

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 5 293

Collapse of RC natural draught cooling towers: W. B. Kr#tzig and Y. Zhuang

m +~"~ of the first order can be uniquely related to the
first-order incremental first and second strain tensors
+
+
+
a ~ , /3~ as well as to the incremental shear strains 7~
as follows 14

where the following abbreviations are used

+ ~_ /-2_1 ~+(X#) -F /'~2

,.~,+(~#)
(X~8
uaBh~,*
~Ja~Xp,,~

(12)

~3c+ = /'7_2

(13)

V~ vector of element degrees of freedom

S +e vector of increments of generalized
parameters
12[, matrix of displacement shape functions
q,e matrix of shape functions of strain tensors
fl[ matrix of shape functions of field forces

(14)

Incremental algorithm

a +(X~)

[73

~, +(k/z)

where the flexibility tensors of the continuum G~ax~ and

G~a are inverse quantities with respect to the material
tensrs E i~x~ and E~e.

Mixed FE-code imbedded into FEMAS software

system

0 = 57rR = I f

The basis for the numerical simulation is formed by the

incremental formulation of the variational principle of
Hellinger-Reissner (15). The present mechanical
variables are thus divided into a fundamental state ( - )
and an incremental neighbouring part ( + )
V e = IJ-e "~ V +e,

To consider the low degree of required continuity for

RC shells caused by the assumption of smeared cracks,
a mixed FE-model has been developed 14 requiring only
a C0-continuity of displacements. The basis of this
model is the Hellinger-Reissner principle written in the
following form

stress

(18)

S e ~--- S -e "~- S +e

The neighbouring strain state can be derived from equations (18) and (11) by neglecting all terms higher than
second order as follows
Ee ~_ E - e ..[_ i~+e _~_

(19)

V2,e++e

Inserting equations (16)-(19) and (12)-(14) into (15)

results in the algebraic equation system

[ ( c ~ - &~)5 r~("~)

Fo

+ (/3~ - ~ ) S m (~a) + (% - ~ ) 6 0 ~ ] d F

IF

-~oKo]e.[S+]e

Lv +]

[nii]e_.~O
+

po-

(20)

with the following abbreviations

t~,

F
G
K
H
P/
P~

k - i f (P~(Sv,~+P3~v3) dF
F"
m o

+i

c?

(n~vt+n~vu+n~v3-k - -

1 "[-W 3

m
+l+w

6w.) dS

(15)

in which the strain tensors marked with (^) are related

to displacements by the kinematic relations (equation
(11)), and the unmarked strain tensors are connected
with the pseudostress resultants and the stress couples by
the constitutive equations (12)-(14). The following
abbreviations according to Basar and Kr~itzig 16 are used
in equation (15).
po~, po3 components of vector of surface loads
nt,o n.,o n~, m t,o m.o components of boundary forces
v~, v3, v,, Vu, w,, w., w3 components of displacements
The displacement variables v;, w~ and the incremental
force variables ~ +(~), m +~), 0 +~ in each element e can
now be approximated by means of shape functions as
follows
re=

IVi, Wc~] e, E e =

294

By eliminating S +e in equation (20) and assembling

all the finite elements of the structure, the desired
incremental tangential stiffness equation ~7 is obtained
as the basis of the applied path following the solution
process

[Gr. F -' . G + Ko]V += [Pa'- Pi + Gr" F -' " H]

I

Kr

AP
(21)

Collapse simulation of the cooling tower at

G u n d r e m m i n g e n power station

Cooling tower geometry

The following numerical investigations were carried out
for one of the Gundremmingen cooling towers (see
Figure 6(a)). The meridian of its middle surface is
formed by a general hyperbola

10/~/3, /~t~/3, ~ct} e

S +e= In +(~), m +(~), t~+~} e

V e ~-- ~'~zV e,

flexibility matrix including material nonlinearities

initial deformation matrix
matrix of initial deformation difference
matrix of initial deformation difference
vector of internal nodal forces
vector of external nodal forces

Ee = ~(IV e,

s + = ~'~ess+e

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 5

(16)
(17)

r = r o + ~ a (b 2 + ( z r _ Z)Z)i/z

(22)

Collapse of RC natural draught cooling towers: W. B. Kr~tzig and Y. Zhuang

He~ht (m)
~e9.2

119.15

/'

i
I

/
/

159.15
~1.25
).16

qe(Z)=

109.75

nG

(25)

as ~$

+ nw <- - 1.75

and nG + 1.75nw <- as " ~s

(26)

25.

Wall profile

Geometry of Gundremmingen cooling tower

with

ro = 29.563 m, a = 8.537 m, b = 27.589 m,

119.15 m. Its wall thickness profile is given in
Figure 6(b)). The supporting columns are modelled
approximately as clamped supports of the shell. Table 1
summarizes the material properties of the concrete and
reinforcement steel utilized. The tensile strength of concrete is assumed according to DIN 1045.17.6.2 as
follows

ZT =

~z = 0"25(I~WN) 2/3 = 0"25(35) 2/3 = 2 . 6 7 5

MN/m

(23)
The wind action on the outer surface of the cooling
tower is introduced in accordance with BTR 9 as
quasistatic in the form
W(Z, O) = cp(O) qe(Z)

(24)

Table 1 Material properties of concrete and steel

where nG and nw denote the principal stress resultants

owing to the dead weight and the wind load, respectively. A minimum reinforcement of 0.15% of each
shell section per surface and direction has been provided
in equation (26).
The numerical computation is based on the mixed
finite shell element SDFR45-A ~4'18. Due to detailed
prestudies 14 the finite element mesh was selected as
follows: 11 elements were chosen for half the circumference and 9 elements in the meridional direction. In
addition 8 layers are considered over the thickness to
model the reinforced concrete. A Newton-Raphson
procedure is applied to solve the nonlinear equation (21)
in an incremental-iterative sense.
Response under Eurocode load-combination
The first collapse simulation has been performed for the
limit state
P = X(1.35G + 1.5W)

/2.4
Modulus of elasticity
Poisson ratio
Specific weight
28-day standard cylindrical ~
compression strength
Tensile strength

3 . 3 - 1 0 7 KN/m 2
O. 18
25.00 KN/m 3
33898.31 KN/m 3

Initial modulus of elasticity

Tangential modulus of
of elasticity
Yield stress

2.1 - 1 0 s KN/m 2
2.1 - 1 0 2 KN/m 2

(27)

according to the Eurocode 8. For this simulation the

material parameters of Table 1 were reduced by partial
safety factors of 1.5 for concrete and 1.15 for steel. The
total load P has been proportionally increased introducing a load factor X until failure.
A characteristic phenomenon occuring in the course of
the collapse analysis is the tensile cracking. Figure 7
shows the load-displacement path of the maximum
bulge at 0 ~ = 6 5 . 4 5 and Z = 148.15 m. The l o a d displacement curve can be divided into two domains.
During the first domain, the cooling tower responds
crack-free below the tensile strength of concrete of
t

Concrete

/~z

09(Z~ n
\-~/

The necessary reinforcement in the shell is calculated for

the load combinations according to BTR

022

Coolingtowergeometry

Ec
/~c
r
/3c

where cp(O) represents the circumferential pressure

distributmn K 1.0 in BTR and qe(Z) the distribution of
the dynamic design pressure over the height

131.70

Figure 6

Thickness(m)

.Domainl
/~

~" 1.8

2.086

1.

X = I. 427

)~= 1.467

2675.00 KN/rn 2

Steel
Eo
Et
fs

5 . 0 - 10 B KN/m 2

01~1

0:06 0:,6 0. 4 0.32 0:40

0:56 0.64

v3(m)

Figure
7 Load-displacement
curve
at
01 = 65.45 ,
Z = 148.1 5 m, load - combination according to Eurocode

Eng. S t r u c t . 1 9 9 2 , V o l . 14, No 5

295

Collapse of RC natural draught cooling towers: W. B. Kr~tzig and Y. Zhuang

u , 6 %1, ,~, ,
I .......
~ ~l
\ 1 \\1\ f|~
+ I f 4- I
f

ind

I I
u i.,. ,.,,,,
I I / \1~ I I I

tr

III

///,
a
Figure 8

T/'

I//

,///

', ', ', ' ',!I

'"

///'
'1"
I

111

iX?///

'"l
1
1

j//
c

Crack e v o l u t i o n on o u t e r surface, load c o m b i n a t i o n according to Eurocode (a), ~ = 1 . 4 2 7 ; (b), ;k = 1 . 4 6 7 ; (c), X = 2 . 0 8 6

1.738 MN/m 2, considering a partial safety coefficient

of 1.5 in equation (23). Domain II represents the
cracked state of the cooling tower: immediately before
point A, cracking starts in a meridional direction near the
upper rim (Figure 8(a)). With the subsequent small load
increase up to point B, the tensile strength of concrete
is exceeded in most of the upper parts of the cooling
tower, accompanied with widespread cracking (Figure
8(b)). Between points B and C the number of cracks
stays essentially the same (compare Figures 8(b) and
8(c)). Here in the main their width increases.
Together with the development of cracks, large deformations of the cooling tower can be observed. Figure 7
shows that shortly after widespread cracking at point B
has occured considerable deformations arise. This stems
from the fact that most cracks rapidly extend across the
whole thickness of the shell, so that the tensile forces
present are transmitted to a large extent by the reinforcement, whose stiffness is much smaller than that of
the uncracked concrete. Large local bulges arise in that
part of the upper shell (Figure 9). Plastic yielding of the
reinforcement appears as a consequence of these large
deformations (Figure lO(a), (c)). At point C in Figure 7,
the reinforcement in the circumferential direction yields
across the thickness of the shell as well as over the whole
environment of the largest bulge (Figures lO(b), (d) and
11), so that equilibrium becomes impossible under additional load increments and the structure collapses.
According to the above results of the simulation, the
failure of the cooling tower can be attributed to an
exhaustion of the load-carrying capacity of concrete by
the tensile cracking and of reinforcement by plastic
yielding. A local failure of the cooling tower due to
exceeding the compressive strength of concrete has not
been observed, because the maximal compressive stress
of concrete reached equated to only 75 % of the cylinder
compressive strength according to Figure 12. Instability
behaviour of the cooling tower caused by geometrical or
physical nonlinear bifurcation was not observed.
The load factor X achieved in this simulation reached
a value of about 2. The reason for this high value was
the computed force redistribution at cracking. In spite of
this, and in the presence of large deformations and
yielding of the reinforcement, the cooling tower had

296

f xlw * l + ' P ~
f I "f-If //! IIIW

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 5

Winc

D e f o r m a t i o n o f cooling t o w e r b e f o r e failure (Eurocode

load c o m b i n a t i o n )

Figure 9

already lost its ability to function properly after reaching

the crack plateau at X = 1.467.

Response under BTR load-combination

In the VGB guideline 9 the limit state is prescribed as
P = MG + 1.75W)

(28)

In contrast to the Eurocode, the partial safety coefficient

for dead weight here equals 1.0 and that for wind load
equals 1.75. The collapse analysis was subsequently carried out for this limit state, to which the load factor X is
related.
In this case the crack plateau occurs at ~ = 1.326
(Figure 13), lower than that for the Eurocode loadcombination. Cracks arise both in the upper part and in

Collapse of RC natural draught cooling towers: W. B. Kratzig and Y. Zhuang

Outer face

Outer face

Inner face

Inner face

///

IIII

I1#
/Ill
IIH
------ Ul I

////
////
////

///

//\

////

I \ll

/////
a

I lU

=HII

IIII

////J
////
/////

'[U
I

Figure 10 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f plastic actions o f circumferential r e i n f o r c e m e n t , load c o m b i n a t i o n according to Eurocode (a), X = 1 . 4 6 7 ; (b),

h = 2 . 0 8 6 ; (c), X = 1 . 4 6 7 ; (d), X = 2 . 0 8 6

48o!

Yield stress
~Bs,F = 4 . 3 4 8 x 105kNm -2 _ _

.....

~ " 4~30o
"= 3 2 0 -

the luff domain of the cooling tower (Figure 14(a), (d)).

With the exception of the cracks in the middle luff
domain, all other cracks extend clearly through the
"thickness of the shell. With subsequent load increases
(point C' in Figure 13), the cracks on the inside of the
middle luff domain reach the exterior shell face (Figure
14(b), (e)). At the col~pse point, the whole luff domain
of the cooling tower Is studded with cracks (Figure

7. = 1 . 4 6 7 ~
"h = 1 . 7 7 9 ~

~ 240-

==

=2086

160-

800
0

~ *
16 3'2

,
48

,27

14(c), (f)).
v

64 80 -96 ,,z ,28,4~4 ,go ,76

Height (m)

Figure 11 Stress d e v e l o p m e n t o f circumferential r e i n f o r c e m e n t

at 6 5 . 4 5 _< 01 _< 73

2.4-

Outer layer

Inner layer

2.0-~
1

"5
2 1.2
"8
3 o.8-

1:= -17161.0kNm -2

0.40

o -,; -~2 -~8 -~ -go -96 -,,'2-,~8-,44-,g0-,76

Stress (kNm -2 x l 0 2 )

Figure 12 Principal c o m p r e s s i v e stress path o f c o n c r e t e at

01 = 6 5 . 4 ~ , Z = 1 4 8 . 1 5 m

2.41
'1.8

X = 2.086
C
~. = 1.427
A

~1.2-

"0

-J

F~'1.314

X=1.467
--

.~ * ' ~ / = ' ~ ' ~ ' ~ " ~

Conclusions

,.,,==-_

c'

o
X=1.427
X = 1.326

D'

X=1.439

0.6
0

'
0

0.08

0.',6 0.24 0.'32 0.~0 0.~8 0.[6

Under BTR load-combination the cooling tower

exhibits a deformation figure different from that due to
Eurocode load-combination. Immediately after the crack
plateau, the cooling tower shows large deformations
both in the upper part, where the largest bulge appears
under the Eurocode load-cont~ination, and in the windward domain at Z = 127.75 m (Figure 15(a)). With
subsequent load increases up to point C' in Figure 13,
the largest displacement takes place in the windward
domain at Z = 113.25 m (Figure 15(b)), since cracks
propagate downwards. As the crack depth approaches
the thickness of the shell in the middle windward
domain, the stiffness there drops dramatically, so that at
subsequent load increments large deformations arise
(Figure 15(c)). They lead to yielding of the reinforcement in the windward domain near the clamped bottom
rim of the shell, the cooling tower then fails immediately.
The collapse load factor for' the load-combination
according to BTR is equal to 1.439, corresponding to
69 % of the critical load factor for the load-combination
according to the Eurocode. The reason for this lies in the
more prominent consideration of the wind load in BTR.
As the evaluated high failure factor demonstrates, the
safety concept of BTR gives more conservative results,
taking the high cost of repairs more realistically into
account.

o.64

v 3 ( rn )

Figure 13 L o a d - d i s p l a c e m e n t
curve
at
01 = 6 5 . 4 5 ,
Z= 148.15m
(0),
BTR load c o m b i n a t i o n ; ( & ), Eurocode
load-combination

The following conclusions can be drawn from the present research: firstly, under the load-combination according to Eurocode and BTR, the weak points of the
cooling tower tend to perform in the tension domain,
where the concrete cracks and the reinforcement yields,
rather than through compression instabilities. Secondly,
the limiting state according to Eurocode appears to be
less stringently formulated than that of the BTR, because
the disadvantageous wind action is taken into consideration in a less inconvenient manner than in the BTR.

Eng. Struct. 1 9 9 2 , Vol. 14, No 5 2 9 7

Collapse of RC natural draught cooling towers: W. B, Kr~tzig and Y. Zhuang

Inner foce

' l , ll' ;1{I1

l l ' I: / i#
\\ +t" ",I,, ,~ 4,i!
JllZl i///;
%%

% % I

t~,1,,I ,I,,; I VII

i

i , .,t-.-=-

/I','#-I

, I , ,11",~ ~, ,r,l,l ,iii

. . . .=.l., i
t l l I=l I I / I I I I l I P ! I
\! \

I -HI

l~'t %I ' " " " '

'~', ' , ' 1
~,%\

Wind

,"

~ , , I ,
~{tll

% I /

l|

Ill

iil t l .vll i l l i i t l i l I i l ~ Hi#i

~titllll~.ltll#i

IIII

lillititlillt t

,,.,i~
IIII
II

Ill/

%%%

IIIII

II

/tl{7

/1'

/?'/" /

~~"Ill
b

Outer foce

t'~ 'll ~.l:,,,+'.u~.+ilr

il-.,,,,, I=,
I-I~%1% i l l i l l

i-~,i,,,,,,, "I i!lJl

llttl,,I, I

Wind

!tltllilllllii

/i/I/

I IIII

//'

LIli ,

Figure 14
X = 1.427;

Crack evolution,
(f), X = 1 . 4 3 9

load c o m b i n a t i o n

1'9%1~1~

I I '

f
(b), X = t . 4 2 7 ;

(c), X = 1 . 4 3 9 ;

- 1
Figure 15

298

Deformations

Eng. S t r u c t .

of cooling tower

1992,

(BTR load c o m b i n a t i o n )

V o l . 14, N o 5

c
(a), X = 1 . 3 2 6 ;

'1i
IIH

f',l
//'/'1t

r #

;:t-$,l,

----.-W'~~____
n

,,

1171
117 I
a c c o r d i n g t o BTR (a), X = 1 . 3 2 6 ,

,q

%%1

fl~ ~1% ~1%

|%It

'tit
d

t,.:
~,~,,l,.

IlltlttlB, ftilllii~t

\\ ,I, ,I, +l,i I, ,I ,1,///

(b), X = 1 . 4 2 7 ;

(c), X = 1 . 4 3 9

(d), X = 1 . 3 2 6 ;

(e),

Collapse of RC natural draught cooling towers: W. B. Kr~tzig and Y. Zhuang

Acknowledgment
Financial support from the German National Science
Foundation-DFG for the investigations described in this
paper is gratefully acknowledged.
References
I Lin, C. S. and Scordelis, A. C. 'Nonlinear analysis of RC shells of
general form', J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 1975, 101 (ST3)
2 Scordelis, A. C. and Chart, E. C. 'Nonlinear analysis of reinforced
concrete shells', Proc. ACI Symposium on Computer Applications in
Concrete Technology, San Francisco, 1987, ACI Special Publication
SP-98
3 Schnobrich, W. C. 'Prediction of nonlinear behavior of reinforced
concrete shells', Proc. IASS Symposium on Nonlinear Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Structures, Vol. 3, Darmstadt, July 1978
4 Gupta, A. K. and Akbar, H. 'Cracking in reinforced concrete
analysis', J Ssruct. Engng, ASCE, 1984 110, No. (8)
5 Kolleger, J., Schulz, J. and Melhorn, G. 'Material model for the
analysis of reinforced concrete shells', Proc. Conf. Numer. Meth.
Engng Theory Applic. Swansea. 1987
6 Mang, H. A. and Trappel, F. 'Physically linear buckling analysis of
reinforced concrete cooling tower-design necessity or academic exercise', Proc. 2nd Int. Syrup., Ruhr-Unlversit~t Bochum, SpringerVerlag 1984, pp 279-297
7 Mildford, R. V. and Schnobrich, W. C. 'The effect of cracking on the
ultimate load of reinforced concrete cooling towers', Proc. 2nd/m.
Syrup., Ruhr-Universitit Bochum, Springer-Verlag, 1984, pp.
319-332

8 Eurocode No. 2 (April 1988): Common Unified Rules for Concrete

Structures, 2nd consolidated draft, (Ed. G. Somerville), British
Cement Association, Slough (April 1988)
9 VGB-Riehflinie. Bauteclmik hei Kfddfftrmen, VGB-R 610 U, VGBKrnftwerkstechulk GmbH, Essen, Germany, 1990
10 Baza t, Z. P. and Kim, S.-S. 'Plastic fracturing theory for concrete',
J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE. 1979 105, (EM3) 407-428
11 Sinha, H. N., Gerstle, K. H., Tulin, L. G. 'Stress-strain relations for
concrete under cyclic loading', Amer. Concrete Inst. J. 1964, 61, (2),
195-210
12 Kupfer, H. B., Hilsdoff, H. K. and Riisch, H. 'Behavior of concrete
under biaxial stress', Amer. Concrete Inst. J., 1969, 66, 656-666
13 Zahlten, W. 'A contribution to the physically and geometrically,
nonlinear computer analysis of general reinforced concrete shells',
IKIB-TWM Nr. 90-2, Ruhr-Universitiit Bochum, 1990
14 Zhuang, Y. 'Ein Stahlbeton-Mehrschichten-Modell zur Kollapsanalyse groSer Naturzugkfihlt(irme', IKIB-TWM Nr. 90-7, RuhrUniversitit Bnchum, Germany, 1990
15 Krtitzig, W. B., Gruher, K. and Zahlten, W. 'Numerical collapse
simulations of large cooling towers checking their safety and
durability', Technical Report TWM-IKIB, Ruhr-Universi~t Bochum
Germany 1991
16 Basal Y. and Kritzig, W. B. Mechanik der Flichentragwerke.
Friedr. Vieweg und Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany, 1985
17 Kritzig, W. B. 'Eine einheitliche statische und .dynamische
Stabili~tstheorie
ffir Pfadveffolgungsalgorithmen
in
der
numerischen FestkOrpermechanik', ZAMM, 1989, 69-7, 203-213
18 Ding, Y. 'Finite-Rotations-Elemente zur geometrisch nichtlinearen
Analyse allgemeiner Fl,'3chentragwerke', IKIB-TWM Nr. 89-6, RuhrUniversit~t Bochum, Germany, 1989

Eng. Struct. 1992, Vol. 14, No 5 2 9 9