Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

Across-wind aerodynamic parameters of tall chimneys with circular S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520
S. Arunachalam a, S.P. Govindaraju b, N. Lakshmanan a, T.V.S.R. Appa Rao
a

a,*

Structural Engineering Research Centre, Madras, 600 113, India b Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560 012, India

Received 3 November 1999; received in revised form 16 May 2000; accepted 16 May 2000

Abstract The prediction of across-wind response of circular cylinders remains a challenging task, despite extensive research efforts. An attempt has been made to correlate the rms lift coefcient due only to vortex shedding, C L,VS both in wind tunnel and full-scale conditions by separating the local rms lift coefcient, C L, into two components, one due to the lateral turbulence and the other due to the vortex shedding. Based on the literature, and also using test results measured by the authors, it is found that the nal value of C L,V, as discussed in the paper, show a mean value of 0.089 with a coefcient of variation of 18%, independent of Reynolds number regime. The above value plus 1.66 times the standard deviation gives a value of 0.115 which is in excellent agreement with the value of C L,VS=0.12 recommended for design of chimneys under open terrain conditions, as per the Indian Standard Code of Practice: IS: 4998 Part-2, 1992. Further it is shown that the Grifn universal Strouhal number, G attains a mean value of 0.065 with a coefcient of variation (cov) of 8%, independent of sub-critical and trans-critical Reynolds number regime. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Circular cylinder; Across-wind response; Turbulence; Vortex shedding; Aerodynamic parameters; RMS lift coefcient

1. Introduction Studies on wind induced vibrations of a circular cylinder such as a chimney, have attracted extensive attention by various researchers in the past but the subject still remains one of the classical problems of bluff body aeroelasticity, particularly with respect to vortex induced vibrations. Wind tunnel testing has been used towards promoting the understanding, and assessment of the forces acting on the structure, and its response to vortex induced oscillations. The response prediction depends on many parameters, which describe details of the approach ow, the forces exerted on the structure due to wind action and dynamic sensitivities of the structure. Unfortunately these aspects are not adequately understood [1] and they are inuenced by many factors including Reynolds number, Strouhal number, rms lift coefcient, freestream turbulence, surface roughness, aspect ratio of the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-44-235-2122; fax: +91-44-2350508.

structure, etc. Thus, there appears to be no single comprehensive theoretical model developed from rst principles to predict the vortex induced response of a circular body such as chimney, as noted by Vickery, Simiu, Melbourne and Kareem among others [15,26]. The most important pioneering research contributions towards prediction of crosswind response of isolated reinforced concrete chimneys have been made by Scruton and Vickery and his coworkers [610,14]. The Vickery and Basu model is currently regarded as the most well developed model for predicting response of RCC chimneys to vortex shedding [1] and hence has been incorporated in several international codes of practice [1113]. While the above model is conceptually advanced in addressing the problem of vortex induced motion of the structure using the random vibration approach, the predictions of responses of full-scale chimneys using this method can vary as much as from 25 to 30% [3,8]. Despite this fact, the above method is currently being widely used. The alternative method of prediction of response of full-scale chimneys based on wind tunnel studies on model chimneys has been reported to

0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 0 - 2

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

503

Nomenclature Cd Cd CL Cpb d d f fs fL H k Lc,i Lux p Re S Sz SRO SB G su U UH z zref z/H Iu n r C L,turb C L,VS Iu * C L,V IV Lc,ref mean drag coefcient (fD/1/2rU2d) rms drag coefcient rms lift coefcient (fL/1/2rU2d) base pressure coefcient cylinder diameter, diameter of structure effective diameter of tapered chimney equal to average diameter of top 1/3rd height frequency vortex shedding frequency uctuating lift force per unit length height of cylinder/chimney wake parameter correlation length, in diameters, of uctuating lift longitudinal length scale of turbulence for u-component pressure Reynolds number, (Ud/n) Strouhal number, (fsd/U) Strouhal number, (fsd/Uz) Roshko universal Strouhal number Bearman universal Strouhal number Grifn universal Strouhal number rms longitudinal velocity local mean wind speed mean wind speed at height of model/chimney height above base reference height relative height turbulence intensity due to u-component kinematic viscosity of air mass density of uid component of rms lift coefcient only due to lateral turbulence component of rms lift coefcient only due to vortex shedding modied turbulence intensity modied value of C L,VS turbulence intensity due to v-component reference correlation length=3.4d

be unsuccessful by Vickery [9,15] mainly because of the inability to match the Reynolds number in the wind tunnel with full-scale values, and that the parameters describing the lift spectrum, viz., the rms lift coefcient, C L,VS, the bandwidth parameter B, and the Strouhal number, S are primarily functions of Reynolds number. However, recently Kareem [4,24] reported that it is possible to simulate the Reynolds number ow regime as in full-scale conditions, in a wind tunnel, by articially altering the ow characteristics using tripping wires and hence to predict the response of the full-scale RC chimney from the wind tunnel test results. A similar approach was reported by Schnanbel and Plate [16] while comparing the wind induced response of a full-scale steel tower with its model tower tested in a wind tunnel. In other words, without resorting to some articial

means of pseudo-simulation of the transcritical ow regime in the wind tunnel, currently it appears not possible to predict the ow parameters such as rms lift coefcient and Strouhal number in full-scale conditions based only on wind tunnel measurements on a smooth cylinder. In this paper, the authors present a new empirical approach for studying the across-wind forces acting on a circular cylinder/chimney. A modied version of local rms lift coefcient, only due to vortex shedding denoted as C L,VS, evaluated from the local rms lift coefcient C L inclusive of lateral turbulence in free stream, is shown to have a universal value of about 0.089 with a cov of 18%, both in wind tunnel and in full-scale conditions, and is independent of Re number. Further, it is shown that the universal Strouhal number proposed by

504

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

Grifn, G, which is directly related to the conventional Strouhal number, S, attains a mean value of about 0.065 with a cov of 8%, independent of Re number. This is based on analysing data from literature on different circular cylinders tested in boundary layer wind tunnels with proper simulation of atmospheric boundary layer (ABL), and using data on two full-scale chimneys and two towers investigated in the eld. The present study makes use of the boundary layer wind tunnel data on circular cylinders published by Kareem et al. [4], Garg and Niemann [21], Vickery and Clark [6], Cheung and Melbourne [27] and also four fullscale sets of experimental data published by Waldeck [22], Sanada et al. [23], Ruscheweyh [36] and Davenport [38]. Further, details on the pressure measurement on a circular cylinder conducted by the authors are also included. It is demonstrated that for the purpose of determining across-wind response, it is possible to reliably predict the aerodynamic force parameters in fullscale conditions based on wind tunnel tests on a smooth cylinder.

s2 L SL(f)

variance of lift force {1/2C LdrU2}2 spectrum of lift force

It is to be noted that the above across-wind force model includes both contributions from vortex shedding and free stream turbulence; i.e. the parameter C L, includes the effects of both the parameters, C L,VS the contribution due to only vortex shedding and C L,turb, the contribution due to lateral turbulence only. It is well established that the basic aerodynamic parameters, viz., Strouhal number, S, and the local rms lift coefcient, C L, are inuenced by the Reynolds number, aspect ratio and surface roughness. They also vary depending on the free stream turbulence, as reported by several investigators [1,8,9,15,18,25]. The latter alters the transitional behaviour, namely the ow separation points, mean drag, base pressure coefcient and consequently the pressure distribution. Some of the effects of free stream turbulence on ow parameters as reported by several investigators are as follows:

2. Earlier studies For evaluating the vortex-induced response of an isolated circular cylinder (corresponding to a tall chimney), several investigations have been reported in the literature [1720]. Most of these experiments have been conducted under uniform ow or turbulent boundary layer ow conditions, some of them with grid generated low turbulence. Since chimneys are exposed to the atmospheric boundary layer conditions, tests have been conducted in the recent past two decades, by various researchers in the boundary layer wind tunnels to study the aerodynamic forces and their effects on a chimney [4,6,21,27] by simulating height-dependent mean velocity, intensity proles and the spectrum of the longitudinal velocity component. The vortex shedding force is caused by the change of surface pressure distribution corresponding to the alternate shedding of vortices. By integrating the circumferential pressure distribution, Vickery and Clark proposed the following empirical formula for predicting the lift force spectrum based on wind tunnel tests [6]: fSL(f)/s2 L where f fs U d B frequency shedding frequency given by the Strouhal num ber relationship, fs=S.U/d mean wind speed diameter band width parameter f exp fs B p 1 1f/fs B
2

1. Both the scale and intensity of turbulence are important and they inuence the values of C L. and S. 2. When the turbulence intensity is increased it tends to increase the shear layer thickness, thus producing increased vortex forces and greater organization of vortex shedding resulting in an increased value of C L [1]. Such a trend can be seen between C L and Iz from full-scale measurements reported by Sanada [23] and which are included in Table 6. 3. For Lux/d 10, where Lux represents the longitudinal turbulence length scale, the effects of large-scale turbulence are assumed to be as per quasi-steady theory. Since small-scale turbulence affects the boundary layer and shear layer, the quasi-steady assumption becomes less valid particularly for Lux/d 1. 4. An increase in the free stream turbulence causes a decrease in the narrow-band correlation length [4,29]. 5. The presence of large-scale turbulence in the free stream broadens the lift force spectrum. 6. To account for the combined effect of intensity and scale of turbulence, Vickery [2] proposed an empirical relation for the modied turbulence intensity, Iz* given by: Iz =Iz,(d/Lux)1/2 where Iz=sz/U(z) and other factors as dened earlier.

Based on the pioneering work by Vickery and Basu, the following expression is used for computing across wind response of chimneys with little or no taper, to vortex shedding [8] for {d(h)/d(o) 0.5},

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

505

1/2

gCLdj(h) rd2 l p 2 2 8p S me 2(l+2) av


h

state that it is still possible to reliably make use of the wind tunnel results for predicting corresponding values of C L and S in full-scale conditions.

f(B,k1) 3. Proposed approach

1 2 j (z)dz bskard 2/me h


0

1/2

where av l d d(o) h CL S j(h) me m(z) r bs l ka f(B,k1) g B k1 U Uc f0 normalized peak tip deection due to vortex shedding aspect ratio, h/d average diameter of top third mean diameter at the bottom chimney height rms lift coefcient (inclusive of both due to lateral turbulence and vortex shedding) Strouhal number mode shape ordinate at height h m(z)j2(z)dz/ j2(z)dz mass/unit length at height z air density structural damping as a fraction of critical correlation length in multiples of diameter aerodynamic damping coefcient 1k 1 2 1 1.5 1 k 1 exp 0.5 B B peak factor ( 4) a spectral bandwidth U/Uc mean wind speed at z=5/6 height f0d/S fundamental frequency

The local ow around an isolated circular chimney/cylinder (and its along wind response to wind action) at any given height mainly depends upon the mean velocity and the turbulent intensity and scale at that height, which are the characteristics of the approach ow. With regard to the cross wind response of a chimney, the vortex shedding mechanism and buffeting due to lateral turbulence are the primary causes. The local rms lift coefcient, C L and the Strouhal number, S are important parameters describing the vortex induced response process. Direct measurements of C L and S are generally made both in wind tunnel and full-scale experiments through rings of pressure taps at various positions along the height. Time histories of pressure coefcients at different pressure taps along the circumference are obtained and by resolving them into lift and drag directions (the time histories of pressures and hence using statistics), values of local rms drag and local rms lift coefcients are evaluated. Such a value of local rms lift coefcient, C L has contributions both from lateral component of turbulence in oncoming ow and from vortex shedding phenomenon. The contribution due to lateral turbulence is spread over a wide range of frequencies and is always present, whereas the contribution due to vortex shedding varies depending on the vortex shedding frequency, fs, given by the Strouhal number relationship, and is extending only for a nite region of frequencies with central frequency equal to fs. Thus the spectrum of lift force can be treated as consisting of: (a) the spectrum part due to the effect of the lateral component of turbulence (b) the spectrum part due to only vortex shedding. This part can be viewed as a running vehicle occupying some position on the spectrum part, due to lateral turbulence only, corresponding to a given value of (fsd/UH). This is schematically shown in Fig. 1 for two different wind speed cases. Such a trend is also seen to be supported by full-scale measurements of spectra of pressures on a 230 m tall reinforced concrete chimney, investigated by Kessler [33] and as shown in Fig. 2. Since the lateral component of turbulence can be treated as wide banded and random in nature, while the vortex shedding is a narrow banded signal, it is suggested that the total variance of the lift force can be com-

The above equation is recommended in the Indian Standard Code of Practice, IS: 4998 Part 2, 1992 [13] on chimneys of circular cross-section for computing acrosswind response due to vortex shedding. It can be seen that C L, S and r are the ow parameters involved and all other parameters are related to geometric and dynamic properties of the structure, such as aspect ratio, mode shape, damping etc. Thus C L and S are the only ow parameters required to be determined. It is stated in the literature that since these two parameters are signicantly dependent on Reynolds number (besides aspect ratio and surface roughness), prediction/extrapolation of values C L and S from wind tunnel tests to prototype conditions is very difcult and hence presently no method appears to be available for use. However, as shown in subsequent sections, the authors would like to

506

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

in this paper is the value of C L, based on reference dynamic pressure at the model height, as these values have been found to give uniform values for modied C L,VS values, as discussed later. As far as the contribution to the lift force spectrum by the lateral component of turbulence is concerned, it is reasonable to assume quasi-steady aerodynamics [1 3]. Thus we can write: sL 1/2rU2d.CD.Iv or
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram showing contributions due to lateral turbulence and vortex shedding to the total force spectrum.

(2)

sL where sL Iv

1/2rU2d.(C

L,turb

(3)

standard deviation of uctuating lift force per unit length v-component turbulence intensity

The ratio between Iu and Iv can be approximately assumed as 0.68 [31], and we get C or C
L,turb L,turb

0.68Iu,.CD 0.34C

(4)

(5)

Fig. 2. Normalized power spectrum of pressure (from full-scale study by Kessler on 230 m tall chimney).

puted as the sum of the squares of these two components and given by: (C L)2 (C where (C L,turb)2=area under that part of the spectrum contributed only by the lateral component of turbulence (C L,VS)2=area under that part of the spectrum contributed only by vortex shedding as a consequence of shape of the cylinder For any two random signals, which are uncorrelated Eq. (1) is exact [39]. The loads due the to lateral component of turbulence and that due to vortex shedding are uncorrelated [3]. Hence use of Eq. (1) for separating the local rms lift coefcient into two components due to lateral turbulence and vortex shedding is considered valid. This is further analogous to summing up the squares of rms values of broad-banded background component and narrow-banded resonant component to get the total variance of along-wind response of a tower-like structure of any cross-section. The local rms lift coefcient, C L as used
L,turb

)2 (C

L,VS

)2

(1)

where C D is the uctuating rms drag coefcient The values of C L,VS using Eq. (1) have been evaluated from different wind tunnel and full-scale test data on circular cylinders/chimneys published in the literature. These include the wind tunnel experiments reported by Kareem [4], Garg and Niemann [21], Melbourne [27], Vickery [6] and full-scale studies conducted by Waldeck [22], Sanada [23] and Ruscheweyh and Davenport [38], as stated earlier. The experimental conditions in each case differ from one another with respect to mean velocity and turbulence proles, aspect ratio, correlation length, Reynolds number etc. As a consequence of variations in the above parameters, it is seen that the value of C L,VS is not universally constant but it depends on individual test conditions. However, the authors have found that by correcting the values of C L,VS in each case with its respective correlation length, through the following equation, it is possible to obtain a modied parameter, C L,V with a mean value of 0.089. This value is found to be independent of the Reynolds number regime, both in wind tunnel and in full-scale conditions. Correction factor for C where Lc,i Lc,ref correlation length expressed in multiples of diameter, corresponding to any given test case correlation length expressed in multiples of diameter corresponding to the reference case of
L,VS

(Lc,i/Lc,ref)n

(6)

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

507

open terrain test case reported by Kareem [4]. (Lc,ref=3.4d) exponent value taken as unity in this analysis

Within the range of test data analysed a linear variation of (Lc,i/Lc,ref), (i.e. n=1) is found to yield values of C L,V which are close to 0.089. However, the exact value of n requires further examination. larger the region of vortex shedding and hence a higher value will be obtained for the ratio of overall lift coefcient, C L,VT to local lift coefcient C L,VS. This will also account for the effect of different aspect ratios. Hence if one were to derive C L,VS from C L,VT, for example from a force balance measurement, these additional factors are also to be considered. In the literature it is emphasized that for a cylinder, the correlation length, Lc,i is very dependent on the location of the reference point and the direction in which the separation distance is taken [4,29]. In a turbulent ow, the presence of high turbulence reduces the correlation of the vortices and the direction of separation is of less importance. The reported values of Lc,i based on tests by Howell et al. [29], vary from approximately 1.8d at z/H=0.25 to 3.4d at z/H=0.5 and to 4.1d at z/H=0.85 for a smooth terrain with a=0.186. The average value of Lc,i for a rougher terrain with a=0.35 is reported as 1.7d. A similar trend of variation of Lc,i with height has been reported by Kareem et al. [4] and Garg et al. [21]. At a given height on a cylinder, a larger value of Lc,i implies that the eddies are highly correlated and hence the spectrum of lift force based on pressure measurements at that level would indicate a narrow band vortex shedding with a higher peak. On the other hand, if Lc,i is of relatively smaller value, then one might obtain a broad band lift force spectrum with reduced peak, shown as (A) and (B) respectively in Fig. 3. From the general loglog plot of the lift force spectrum with fSL(f) versus f, it may be inferred that with the same mean velocity at the given height in both cases discussed above, the contribution to C L,VS will be more when Lc,i is smaller and vice versa as can be seen from

Table 1. It may also be noted that between two terrains, for a given model at a given height, the value of Lc,i will be smaller, when the model is located in a rougher terrain and the value of Lc,i will be relatively higher when it is placed in a smooth terrain [4]. Hence, the computed values of C L,VS as above, are multiplied by a correction factor (Lc,i/Lc,ref) for respective correlation lengths. A correlation length of 3.4d is taken as the value for the reference correlation length. Many of the investigators referred have given the correlation lengths and these have been used. A correlation length of one diameter has been suggested by Vickery. However, this has been taken as 1.6d based on the available literature [4,21,29]. The reported low value of correlation length of one diameter was attributed to the effects of taper, nite aspect ratio and also to the presence of shear ow [32]. The resulting modied values of C L,VS denoted as C L,V from all the wind tunnel and full-scale data, is shown to attain a mean value of about 0.089 with a coefcient of variation (cov) of about 18%, independent of the Reynolds number regime. Thus it is hypothesized that when circular cylinders are exposed to wind under atmospheric boundary layer ow conditions, either in a wind tunnel or at full-scale, at any height of the cylinder, (except very close to tip and bottom of the cylinder) the value of C L,V as discussed above can be expected to approach a mean value of about 0.089 with a coefcient of 18% and this will be independent of Reynolds number. The validation of this observation is discussed in the next section. The exactness of the above value 0.089 can however be improved when additional data become available. The above value of 0.089 will be valid when the reference correlation length is about 3.4d. In the case of a given experiment with the value of correlation length, Lc,i the value of 0.089 is to be multiplied by a correction factor of (3.4d/Lc,i) to obtain corresponding C L,V. 4. Validation of the hypothesis Measurements of pressure and force uctuations on isolated cylinders of nite height (l1=10 and l2=13.33) in two different simulated atmospheric boundary layers, have been studied by Kareem et al. [4]. Correlations of pressure uctuations, spectra of along-wind and acrosswind forces and variations of rms lift coefcients and Strouhal number with model height have been reported. The tests were conducted in the sub-critical Reynolds number range (Re=2.54 to 2.75104). The salient features of the test results for the two models corresponding to the open terrain are suitably deduced and are given in Table 1. The corresponding data for rougher terrain are given in Table 2. Since the values of local rms lift coefcient, C L, and Strouhal number are generally reported as a variation of relative height, z/H, where H

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram showing relative effect of high and low correlation lengths on total variance of lift force spectrum.

508

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

Table 1 Values of different parameters deduced from wind tunnel results after Kareem et al. [4]. Open terrain: a=0.16 SI. No. Test case (z/H) z/zref U(z/H) (m/s) 3.898 4.500 4.698 4.829 4.08 4.71 4.92 5.06 I(z/H) C
L,turb

L,VS

L,V

BL1-30 (l=10.0)

BL1-40 (l=13.33)

0.22 0.54 0.706 0.84 0.22 0.54 0.706 0.84

0.165 0.405 0.530 0.630 0.22 0.54 0.706 0.84

0.153 0.086 0.079 0.079 0.126 0.079 0.079 0.079

0.084 0.047 0.044 0.044 0.069 0.044 0.044 0.044

0.2 0.088 0.082 0.085 0.258 0.111 0.106 0.106

0.181 0.074 0.070 0.073 0.249 0.102 0.097 0.097

0.075 0.074 0.070 0.073 0.102 0.102 0.097 0.097

0.134 0.155 0.145 0.133 0.180 0.184 0.180 0.174

Table 2 Values of different parameters deduced from wind tunnel results after Kareem et al. [4]. Rough terrain: a=0.35 SI. no. Test case (z/H) z/zref U(z/H) (m/s) 2.77 3.79 4.17 4.42 3.06 4.19 4.60 4.89 I(z/H) C
L,turb

L,VS

L,V

BL1-30 (l=10)

BL1-40 (l=13.33)

0.22 0.54 0.706 0.84 0.22 0.54 0.706 0.84

0.165 0.405 0.530 0.630 0.22 0.54 0.706 0.84

0.233 0.198 0.197 0.185 0.221 0.193 0.184 0.170

0.141 0.121 0.121 0.113 0.135 0.118 0.113 0.104

0.185 0.185 0.179 0.176 0.195 0.215 0.200 0.197

0.120 0.140 0.132 0.135 0.141 0.180 0.165 0.167

0.078 0.090 0.086 0.087 0.091 0.116 0.107 0.108

0.128 0.150 0.142 0.137 0.192 0.211 0.205 0.191

is the height of the cylinder/chimney, these values are listed here against relative heights. Using Eq. (4), the lift coefcient part corresponding to lateral turbulence component only, denoted as C L,turb is worked out for each relative height. The value of C L,VS is now computed using the suggested Eq. (1). The repotted values of correlation lengths are equal to 3.4d and 2.2d respectively, for smooth and rough terrain conditions and these correspond to only average values. The nal values of modied C L,VS denoted as C L,V are given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Based on a boundary layer wind tunnel investigation on uctuating aerodynamic forces on a circular cylinder with an aspect ratio of 8.5, Garg and Niemann [21] presented variation of mean and uctuating components of pressure, drag and lift, and their correlation and variation of C L and S with height. The test data are shown in Table 3 with relevant deduced values and are used in the present study.

Further, the values of C L and S based on wind tunnel results published by Cheung and Melbourne [27] measured on a horizontal cylinder (l=4.5) have also been included in the present study and are shown in Table 4. Since it is hypothesized that at any given height Eq. (1) holds good, the above wind tunnel data have been included even though the cylinder had been tested in a horizontal position. Since values of uctuating drag coefcient, C D have been directly reported, values of C L,turb have been computed based on quasi-steady aerodynamics, using Eq. (5). The wind tunnel data corresponding to turbulence intensity levels between 4 and 9% and corresponding to Reynolds number range between 8104 and 4105 are considered in this analysis. The vortex induced aerodynamic forces acting on a vertical tapered cylinder and its response in simulated atmospheric boundary layer conditions were reported by Vickery and Clark [6]. The value of the power-law component, a, for the mean velocity proles, based on

Table 3 Values of different parameters deduced from wind tunnel results after Garg and Niemann [21]. Open terrain: a=0.16 Test case SI. no. (z/H) z/zref U(z/H) (m/s) 10.88 12.17 13.02 13.64 I(z/H) C
L,turb

L,VS

L,V

HJN (l=8.57)

1 2 3 4

0.208 0.405 0.612 0.805

0.125 0.242 0.367 0.483

0.182 0.147 0.124 0.106

0.177 0.158 0.130 0.105

0.269 0.252 0.254 0.279

0.203 0.196 0.218 0.258

0.082 0.086 0.103 0.127

0.1145 0.134 0.141 0.135

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

509

Table 4 Values of different parameters deduced from wind tunnel results after Cheung and Melbourne [27]. a=0.16 (assumed) Test case WHM SI. no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Re 8E04 1E05 2E05 3E05 4E05 8E04 1E05 2E05 3E05 4E05 8E04 1E05 2E05 3E05 4E05 I 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 C
D

L,turb

L,VS

L,V

0.204 0.159 0.063 0.030 0.031 0.190 0.146 0.056 0.035 0.037 0.184 0.141 0.052 0.044 0.044

0.0694 0.0541 0.021 0.0102 0.0105 0.0646 0.0496 0.0190 0.0119 0.0126 0.063 0.048 0.0177 0.015 0.015

0.21 0.17 0.086 0.07 0.083 0.18 0.14 0.086 0.095 0.103 0.16 0.12 0.105 0.11 0.12

0.198 0.161 0.083 0.068 0.082 0.168 0.131 0.084 0.094 0.102 0.147 0.110 0.104 0.110 0.120

0.105 0.085 0.083 0.068 0.082 0.089 0.069 0.084 0.094 0.102 0.078 0.058 0.104 0.110 0.119

Figure 2 of their paper is deduced equal to 0.37, which corresponds to a rough terrain category. Based on detailed pressure measurements on a rigid model, Vickery et al. have reported the variations of shedding frequency, fs and of local rms lift coefcient, C L with height. The range of Re number in their study is between 2104 and 7104 (i.e. sub-critical ow). The aspect ratio of the model based on average diameter of the top 1/3rd height of chimney is 25.7. These data are also included in the present study as shown in Table 5. The resulting

values of C L,V can be seen to lie in the region of 0.07 0.10 with an average value of 0.088, as shown in Table 5. Sanada et al. [23] published details of full-scale measurements on wind forces on a 200 m tall reinforced concrete chimney and their data were discussed by Vickery [8]. From these two references, the measured data at a height of 140 m (z/H=0.706; l=13.5), pertaining to S, C L, U and Re are taken and are given in Table 6. The deduced values of C L included in Table 6 are based

Table 5 Values of different parameters deduced from wind tunnel results after Vickery and Clark [6]. Rough terrain a=0.37 Test case BJV (l=25.7) SI. no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 z/H 0.278 0.306 0.333 0.361 0.389 0.417 0.444 0.472 0.500 0.528 0.556 0.583 0.611 0.639 0.667 0.694 0.722 0.750 0.778 0.806 0.833 0.861 0.889 0.917 z(m) 0.254 0.279 0.305 0.330 0.356 0.381 0.406 0.432 0.457 0.483 0.508 0.533 0.559 0.584 0.610 0.635 0.660 0.686 0.711 0.737 0.762 0.787 0.813 0.838 U(z/H)(m/s) I(z/H) 4.74 4.91 5.07 5.23 5.37 5.51 5.64 5.77 5.90 6.02 6.13 6.24 6.35 6.46 6.56 6.66 6.76 6.85 6.94 7.03 7.12 7.21 7.29 7.38 0.186 0.178 0.170 0.163 0.157 0.152 0.147 0.143 0.140 0.136 0.133 0.129 0.125 0.119 0.112 0.110 0.107 0.102 0.099 0.093 0.088 0.081 0.075 0.064 C
L,turb

L,VS

L,V

0.110 0.104 0.099 0.097 0.096 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.094 0.0903 0.087 0.084 0.080 0.076 0.071 0.071 0.069 0.067 0.063 0.056 0.052 0.0496 0.047 0.041

0.204 0.177 0.189 0.192 0.199 0.209 0.223 0.219 0.227 0.231 0.233 0.233 0.211 0.218 0.235 0.205 0.201 0.196 0.194 0.199 0.166 0.186 0.167 0.188

0.171 0.144 0.160 0.165 0.174 0.188 0.203 0.198 0.206 0.212 0.216 0.217 0.195 0.204 0.224 0.194 0.190 0.186 0.185 0.191 0.158 0.179 0.159 0.183

0.080 0.068 0.076 0.078 0.082 0.088 0.095 0.093 0.097 0.100 0.102 0.102 0.092 0.096 0.105 0.091 0.089 0.088 0.087 0.090 0.074 0.084 0.075 0.086

510

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

Table 6 Values of different parameters deduced from full-scale experiments after Sanada [23]. Open terrain: a=0.16; z/H=0.706; l=13.5 SI. no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 U(z/H) (m/s) 13.51 16.51 16.89 23.24 24.79 25.88 I(z/H) 0.106 0.10 0.067 0.067 0.059 0.048 C
L,turb

L,VS

=C

L,V

0.045 0.042 0.028 0.028 0.025 0.020

0.134 0.127 0.064 0.064 0.057 0.047

0.126 0.119 0.057 0.057 0.051 0.042

on dynamic pressure corresponding to UH. The power law exponent is assumed to be equal to 0.16, since its value is not available in Sanadas paper [23]. A similar full-scale experiment on a 300 m tall chimney in an open terrain condition was reported by Waldeck [22]. The relevant experimental data on mean velocity, turbulence intensity, rms lift coefcient and Strouhal number, collected at a height of 252 m, (z/H=0.84, g=23) for different test runs are included in Table 7. It may be noted that the value of C L given in the Table 7 corresponds to the total rms lift coefcient (i.e. rms lift coefcient due to lateral turbulence and due to vortex shedding). In both these full-scale measurements, the value of mean drag coefcient is assumed equal to 0.62 based on values reported by Sanada et al. (as the corresponding value is not available in Waldecks paper). For the purpose of computing C L,V in the present analysis, the correlation length, Lc,i has been assumed to be equal to 3.4d for the above two full-scale studies. The wind tunnel test data corresponding to a 30 high model in smooth terrain tested by Kareem and included as reference case in this study can be treated similar to the above full-scale tests in terms of terrain features, powerlaw exponent a 0.16, and turbulence intensity level. The turbulence intensity level measured at the level of z/H=0.706 by Sanada et al., and at z/H=0.84 by Waldeck is less than around 8% which is very similar that obtained in the above wind tunnel case. Hence, it is reasonable to assume Lc,i=3.4d for the full-scale data considered here. This implies that the correction factor to be applied for correlation factor becomes unity and

values of C L,VS and C L,V will be the same. The computed values of C L,V for both these cases are included in Tables 6 and 7. It may be noted that for all the wind tunnel and full-scale data considered here, the value of C L,V lies in the range of 0.070.11 with an average value of 0.089. Only four points out of the total 93 data points are around 0.05 and three points are above 0.11. Hence, the authors propose that it is reasonable to assume that for a smooth circular cylinder, the values of C L,V as discussed above will exhibit a mean value of about 0.089. Full-scale wind pressure measurements on the television tower, Hamburg, Germany was investigated by Ruscheweyh [36]. The measurement level was at a relative height of z/H=0.29, (z=78.8 m) and the values of Re number, turbulent intensity, and rms level lift coefcient, (inclusive of both components due to lateral turbulence and vortex shedding), C L were given in their paper for 20 records and are shown in Table 8. Since in the present method, the value of C L,turb is deduced from the rms lift H coefcient, which is referenced to 1/2rU2 , the reported values given in their paper, which are referenced to Z 1/2rU2 , are multiplied by (z/H)2 where a is the powerlaw coefcient of mean velocity prole. As there is no explicit mention of the value of a in their paper, its value is indirectly estimated. Based on the average value of turbulence intensity from above 20 records, which is equal to 0.177, the mean value of roughness length is obtained as z0,mean=0.28 m using the expression, Iz 1/ln(z/z0) (7)

Table 7 Values of different parameters deduced from full-scale experiments after Waldeck [22]. Open terrain ; a=0.16 (assumed); z/H=0.84; l=23.1 SI. no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 U(z/H) (m/s) 26.0 7.9 18.2 16.1 22.1 17.7 21.1 20.7 I(z/H) 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.05 C
L,turb

L,VS

=C

L,V

0.030 0.030 0.025 0.017 0.021 0.013 0.034 0.021

0.087 0.097 0.107 0.089 0.082 0.077 0.087 0.077

0.082 0.092 0.103 0.087 0.079 0.076 0.080 0.074

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

511

Table 8 Values of different parameters deduced from full-scale experiments after Ruscheweyh [36]. a=0.19 (deduced); z/H=0.29 SI. no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Re no. (10 4) 8.75 8.54 8.42 6.67 6.68 10.90 10.30 6.51 9.23 9.57 9.30 8.70 8.47 10.0 9.6 12.0 11.6 10.9 10.5 9.91 I(z/H) 0.153 0.185 0.167 0.151 0.161 0.167 0.176 0.208 0.166 0.194 0.155 0.163 0.192 0.207 0.192 0.211 0.194 0.170 0.175 0.162 C
L

L,turb

L,V

0.111 0.107 0.098 0.115 0.116 0.096 0.109 0.130 0.121 0.116 0.097 0.101 0.098 0.099 0.109 0.117 0.107 0.104 0.105 0.097

0.050 0.061 0.055 0.050 0.053 0.055 0.058 0.068 0.054 0.064 0.051 0.053 0.063 0.068 0.063 0.069 0.064 0.056 0.057 0.053

0.099 0.088 0.081 0.104 0.103 0.078 0.092 0.110 0.108 0.096 0.082 0.085 0.075 0.071 0.088 0.094 0.086 0.088 0.088 0.081

which is generally an accepted procedure [37]. Using the following relationship proposed by Counihan, a 0.096log10(z0) 0.016{log10(z0)}2 0.24 (8)

The value of a is worked out to be equal to 0.19. Thus after computing values of rms lift coefcient, referenced to dynamic pressure at the height of the tower, the values of C L,turb and C L,VS have been computed using procedure described earlier. Since the value of correction factor for correlation length in full-scale studies can be taken as unity as discussed before, the values of C L,V and C L,VS are equal. It can be clearly seen from Table 8 that these values are close to about 0.089. The average of all the 93 values is equal to 0.089 with a standard deviation of 0.01573. The accuracy of this value can however be improved, as more and more data become available. It can be noted that the value of the mean plus 1.66 times the standard deviation is equal to 0.115, which is in excellent agreement with the value of 0.12 for C L,V recommended for design in category-2, i.e. open terrain conditions as per the Indian Code of Practice [13]. For cases, where chimneys are likely to be located in category-3 i.e. suburban terrains, the authors suggest that a value of Lc,I=2.5d may be considered reasonable. Thus the mean value of C L,V would be equal to 0.089 (3.4d/2.5d)=0.121, and the design value of C L,V (=mean+1.66*standard deviation) would be equal to 0.147, which would be about 22% higher than its counterpart value in open terrain conditions. Thus it is shown that the value of C L,V is independent of Re number regime and it attains a mean value of about

0.089 (cov=18%) both in tunnel and full-scale tests. A plot has been drawn between C L,V versus [Re.(z/H)] and this removes bunching of points at certain Re values. The nal results of C L,V plotted against [Re.(z/H)], are shown in Fig. 4. It is easily seen that the inclusion of the factor (z/H) in the abscissa is only to stretch the data points and to achieve a better presentation of the data.

5. Comparison of Strouhal number value between wind tunnel and full-scale test results The Strouhal number, S=fd/U, (f=vortex shedding fre quency, d=diameter of the cylinder and U=undisturbed upstream velocity) is one of the primary parameters describing the vortex frequency in the wake region of a cylinder. It depends on Reynolds number, surface roughness value, and aspect ratio, l, of a cylinder [24]. The wind tunnel data reported by Kareem [4], Garg and Niemann [21], Cheung and Melbourne [27] and Vickery [6] and the full-scale data published by Sanada [23] and Waldeck [22] which are considered for analysis in this paper, show a value of Strouhal number varying between 0.115 and 0.215 in the wind tunnel and between 0.17 and 0.27 in full-scale studies. Even though there is considerable variation in the value of S as stated above, the authors propose that these values could be reduced to a near constant value, if S is viewed in terms of the concept of a universal Strouhal number. Several investigations have been made of this universal non-dimensional number, which includes vortex shedding frequency. The dimension of the body, d, which is included in the conventional Strouhal number, S=fd/U,

512

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

Fig. 4. (a) Comparison between WT and FS results AK, HJN, BJV, RUSCH and FS. Data; 5899 mean=0.089; sig=0.01573; (b) Comparison between WT and FS results AK, HJN, BJV, WHM, RUSCH and FS. Data mean=0.089; sig=0.01573.

is not related to the vortex street. The concept of a universal Strouhal number is that same size vortex street may be expected to originate from different bluff bodies, when proper scaling for reference length and velocity is used, besides the vortex shedding frequency [30]. In the literature, universal Strouhal numbers which include the dimensions of vortex streets of cylinders in uniform ow, were studied by Roshko et al. [28]. The effect of surface roughness on the universal Strouhal number has been recently reported by Adachi [30]. He reported that for a cylinder with various roughness surfaces over a wide range of Reynolds number 510 4 Re 107, Bearmans number was the most uniform Strouhal number, and Grifns number, G, also is independent of Re range, if data corresponding to about 5105 to 2106 are neg-

lected. A brief description of these three universal Strouhal numbers is given below: 1. Roshkos number, SRO: Roshko demonstrated that the wake Strouhal number can be dened in terms of wake width, d , and velo city at the point of separation Ub. Thus, he dened the following universal Strouhal number, SRO: fs.d SRO Ub The relation between Ub and U , is given by: Ub kU (1 Cpb)1/2U , (9)

where k is a wake parameter and can be obtained

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

513

using Bernoullis equation. Roshko also suggested the following relation between mean drag coefcient, CD, and base pressure coefcient, Cpb, d CD pb d C where d is the wake-width. Thus, the universal Strouhal number proposed by Roshko takes the form: SRO (S/k)(CD/( Cpb)) 2. Bearmans Universal number: SB The wake Strouhal number, according to Bearman is given by: SB=fsh/Ub where h refers to lateral spacing of vortices. This can also be expressed as [30]: SB 1/k.(h/l).UN/U (10)

where l is the longitudinal spacing of vortices of opposite sign and UN is the velocity of the centres of the vortices relative to the body. 3. Grifns universal Strouhal number, G. Grifn demonstrated that the product of the wake Strouhal number and wake drag coefcient, S*CD*, is a constant with a value of 0.0730.005 for a wide range of Re numbers, Re*=100107, where S fsd /U (S/k).(d /d) Re Ud /v Re k.(d /d) and
S CD S.CD/k 3 G

(11)

In the present study, the Grifn universal Strouhal number is selected for comparing wind tunnel and full-scale data. The Strouhal number S, at any given height z is nDz used for computation of G (Sz= ). While the value of vz Strouhal number, S, is available for a greater number of z/H values in the test data reported in [4,6,21] data on base pressure coefcient, Cpb, are reported only for limited levels and are included in Table 9. It is clearly seen, that the computed values of Grifn number, G using Eq. (11) are equal to about 0.065, for the data reported by Kareem (open terrain) and by Niemann, where the model has uniform diameter throughout its height. However, the value slightly increases to 0.07 for the case of rougher terrain tested by Kareem. In the case of test results reported by Vickery, the computed value of G varied from 0.044 to 0.074. Since the chimney model has a linear taper throughout the height, a taper correction factor, d(z)/d(zref), was applied as a multiplying fac-

tor, where d(zref) is the diameter of the model at the 2/3rd reference height of the model. The resulting modied values of G lie in the range between 0.055 and 0.072. In particular, the values of G for heights above the mid height of the model have values closer to 0.065. Since the top 50 or 60% of the height of the chimney is generally considered to contribute to the vortex shedding phenomenon, it may be reasonably assumed that all the wind tunnel results discussed above, give a mean value of G=0.065, with a cov of 7%, independent of the Reynolds number, 2104 Re 7104. This is in good agreement with test observations reported by Adachi [30]. The universality of Grifn Strouhal number, G, has been established for smooth cylinders tested in wind tunnels or for cylinders with various surface roughness values as reported by Adachi only under uniform ow conditions. However, in the present study it is found that wind tunnel data by Kareem, Niemann and Vickery clearly indicate that even when cylinders are tested in wind tunnels with proper simulation of atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) (which is a more realistic case for full-scale chimneys), the universality of Grifn Strouhal number, G, can be obtained. Thus, while the extent of mean velocity, intensity and scale of turbulence at a given height may vary between individual tests, their inuences on Strouhal number, can be indirectly accounted for through the Grifn universal Strouhal number, G. Recently, Gu et al. [40], have reported time averaged pressures on two cylinders in various arrangements, as well as uctuating pressures in some cases, in uniform ow with a turbulence level of 10%. The relevant data pertaining to an isolated cylinder are taken from their paper and are included in Table 9. It is clear that the deduced value of G is close to 0.065 even though the value of Strouhal number from this test is relatively high and equal to 0.263. Fox et al. [41] have reported wind tunnel results on the aerodynamic disturbance caused by the free ends of a circular cylinder held horizontally and immersed in a low turbulence ( 0.2%) steady, uniform ow. Mean and uctuating surface pressures, local mean pressure drag, rms lift and rms drag and Strouhal number of vortex shedding have been measured corresponding to a Reynolds number of Re=4.4104. Using the above data, the values of G are computed at locations of y/d=15 and 20, (where y is the distance from the free end, d is the diameter of the cylinder) and these are included in Table 9. It can be noted that the values of G are found to be equal to 0.069 and it is in good agreement with the G value obtained from other experiments discussed earlier. Similarly full-scale data on a 265 m tall Mt. Isa reported by Cheung and Melbourne [27,35] and on a 200 m tall concrete chimney investigated by Sanada et al. [23] are included in Table 10. The values of G computed using these data also suggest a mean value of G=0.065

514

Table 9 Values of Grifn universal Strouhal number deduced from various wind tunnel experiments (z/H) I(z/H) Cpb SH Sz k=1Cpb CD Correction for Taper (dz/dzref) G=Sz.CD/k 3 Re104

SI. no.

Investigator (BLWT experiments) 0.706 0.706 0.750 0.333 0.361 0.389 0.417 0.500 0.583 0.667 0.750 0.833 0.917 0.500

1 2. 3. 4.

Kareem BLI-30 [4] Kareem BL2-30 [4] Niemann [21] Vickery [6]

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

5. 6. 7. 0.58

Gu et al., [40] Fox et al., [41] Present study

0.079 0.197 0.100 0.170 0.163 0.157 0.152 0.140 0.129 0.112 0.102 0.088 0.064 0.100 0.002 0.002 0.16

0.58 0.72 0.70 0.867 0.876 0.876 0.886 0.895 0.914 0.829 0.781 0.714 0.657 0.55 1.133 1.26 0.209

1.26 1.311 1.304 1.366 1.37 1.37 1.373 1.377 1.383 1.352 1.335 1.309 1.287 1.245 1.460 1.503 1.100

0.81 0.90 0.95 0.857 0.876 0.895 0.895 0.990 0.952 0.933 0.905 0.876 0.952 0.470 1.133 1.24 0.494

0.145 0.142 0.135

0.161 0.177 0.146 0.131 0.138 0.136 0.146 0.166 0.171 0.186 0.197 0.203 0.181 0.263 0.190 0.190 0.181

1.3 1.275 1.25 1.225 1.15 1.075 1.0 0.925 0.85 0.775

0.066 0.071 0.063 0.057 0.060 0.059 0.062 0.072 0.066 0.070 0.069 0.067 0.063 0.064 0.069 0.069 0.067

2.39 2.11 6.37 1.77 1.79 1.80 1.81 1.82 1.80 1.75 1.69 1.61 1.52 65.00 4.4 4.4 19.5

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

515

Table 10 Values of Grifn universal Strouhal number deduced from various full-scale experiments. Mean=0.065; SD=0.005; cov=7.7% SI no. Investigator (full-scale experiments) Melbourne [35,27] Sanada et al. [23] Sanada et al. [23] Sanada et al. [23] Erbacher and Plate [34] Erbacher and Plate [34] Davenport [38] Ruscheweyh [36] (z/H) I(z/H) Cpb k=1Cpb CD Sz G=Sz.CD/k 3 Re107

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.83 0.706 0.706 0.706 0.37 0.652 0.29

0.07 0.067 0.059 0.048 -

0.50 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.86 0.86 0.917 0.44

1.225 1.269 1.269 1.269 1.364 1.364 1.385 1.200

0.60 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.93 0.77 0.70 0.487

0.20 0.225 0.210 0.180 0.200 0.216 0.250 0.23

0.065 0.068 0.064 0.055 0.073 0.066 0.066 0.065

0.48 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4

1.4

with a cov of 8%, even for the transcritical range, where Re is of the order of 107. Thus the authors propose that the Grifn Strouhal number, G can be analysed to yield a mean value of 0.065, independent of Re number, both in the subcritical regime and transcritical regime, in which wind tunnel tests and full-scale tests are normally being conducted respectively. The authors admit that the number of test data points discussed above are less in number and they believe that the preciseness of the value of G can be improved with addition of more test data when available. Maier and Plate have investigated the velocity and pressure eld on a prototype cylindrical tower located in an irregular terrain [34]. The power-law exponent varies from 0.21 to 0.36 depending upon the wind direction. The total height of the tower is 46 m and 16 differential pressure transducers have been mounted at 17, 25.5 and 30 m levels and based on the mean pressure distributions measured at different directions and heights, shown in Figure 7 of their paper, the average value of Cpb is taken as equal to 0.86. The reported values of mean drag coefcient, CD decreases from 0.93 at z=17 m to 0.77 at z=30 m. From the measured pressure spectra at the region of ow separation at z=17 m and at z=30 m, shown in Figure 7 of their paper, the values of Sz have been evaluated as Sz=0.20 at z=17 m and Sz=0.216 at z=30 m. Using these data, the corresponding values of G have been worked out to be G=0.073 and G=0.066 at z=17 m and z=30 m respectively. Details of full-scale wind pressure measurements conducted by Jensen on a 240 m tall cylindrical tower, are referred to by Davenport [38]. The reported values of Cpb, CD and Strouhal number are 0.917, 0.7 and 0.25 respectively. Thus the value of Grifn universal Strouhal number is computed as equal to 0.066 using Eq. (11). Similarly based on the full-scale investigation of wind pressures on the television tower, Hamburg, conducted by Ruscheweyh [36] and discussed earlier in Section 4, the reported values of Cpb, CD and S are 0.44, 0.487 and 0.23 respectively. The computed value of G using Eq. (11) works out to be 0.065. Thus these full-scale

data also yield a value of G around 0.065 as exhibited by other full-scale as well as wind tunnel test results. The wind tunnel and full-scale test data included in Tables 9 and 10 further show that the wake parameter, k, given by Eq. (9) is linearly related to the freestream turbulence intensity, I(z/H). as shown in Fig. 5. The equation of the best-t line is given by : k 0.8393I(z/H) 1.2251 (12)

6. Pressure measurement test on a circular cylinder 6.1. Boundary layer wind tunnel (BLWT) facility Pressure measurements on a circular cylinder under simulated open terrain conditions were carried out using the boundary layer wind tunnel available at the Structural Engineering Research Centre, Madras. This stateof-the-art boundary layer wind tunnel is an open circuit and a blower type wind tunnel. It has a total length of 52 m with a test section of size, 2.5 m(W)1.8 m(H)18 m(L). The maximum speed that can be attained in this tunnel is 55 m/s. A schematic view of the wind tunnel is given in Fig. 6.

Fig. 5.

Variation of wake parameter, k, with turbulence intensity.

516

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

Fig. 6.

Three dimensional view of boundary layer wind tunnel structure.

6.2. Experimental set-up The model cylinder had a diameter of 15 cm and a total height of 60 cm (l=4). The rigid model was made out of acrylic material. Twelve pressure taps were provided at each of the two levels of z=35 cm and z=24 cm at 30 uniform intervals along the circumference. Pressure tubes made of PVC material with 1.2 mm ID, and with a length of 50 cm each were used. In the present study, the pressure measurement system with electronic pressure transducers supplied by M/s Pressure Systems, USA, was used for acquisition of pressure signals. Since the volume of these pressure transducers is very small compared to that of pressure transducers used in conventional system, no restrictors were used. The mean velocity prole (a=0.16) and the turbulence intensity proles simulated in the tunnel are shown in Fig. 7(a,b), which are typical for an open terrain category. The simulated spectrum of wind compared well with Karmans spectrum for longitudinal component of velocity. The pressure signals were acquired at a scanning rate of 500 Hz, for a period of 10 s per channel. Data were acquired for two different values of free-stream velocity. The Reynolds number values, based on the free-stream velocities of 13.0 and 19.5 m/s, are 1.35105 and 1.95105 respectively. The spectra of pressure signals were suitably corrected for the frequency response of the tubing system using the analytically derived tubing frequency response of the pneumatic circuit by means of available software. The software uses parameters such as diameter and length of tubing, its exibility, volume of electro-scan pressure transducers, and restrictors/manifolds included in pneumatic circuit.

6.3. Results and discussion The mean and uctuating pressure distributions measured on the cylinder at z=35 cm are given in Figs. 8 and 9. The value of dynamic pressure at z=35 cm was experimentally found to be 157 Pa. By integration of pressure coefcients, through the following equations, the mean drag coefcient, CD and the rms lift coefcient, C L have been computed and these values are equal to 0.494 and 0.22 respectively. CD p/12 CpIcos 30(i 1) C
L

(13) (14)

p/12 C pIsin 30(i 1)

The value of turbulence intensity at z=35 cm was equal to 0.16. Hence using Eq. (4), the value of C L,turb is worked out to be 0.048. Further, the value of C L,VS from Eq. (6) is calculated as equal to 0.215. Based on measured uctuating pressure data from 12 corresponding taps at the two levels of z=35 cm and z=24 cm, ( z/d=r/d=11 cm), the values of correlation coefcient, R(r) have been obtained and they are plotted in Fig. 10 as a function of azimuthal angle. The above curve can be seen to be reasonably symmetric. The average value of correlation coefcient, for q=60 to q=180 is found to be 0.61. Using this value in Eq. (17) discussed in Appendix A, the value of c is found to be 0.67. The corresponding value of correlation length for the tested cylinder with l=4 at z=35 cm is found to be 1.39d, using Eq. (18). As described earlier, the correction factor for C L,VS is given by the ratio (1.39d/3.4d) and the modied value, C L,V for tested cylinder is obtained as,

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

517

Fig. 9. Rms pressure distribution on the circular cylinder, z=35 cm.

Fig. 10. Variation of correlation coefcient with azimuthal angle (PRTW300p1.dat).

L,V

(1.39d/3.4d)(0.215) 0.088

(15)

Fig. 7.

(a) Mean velocity prole; (b) turbulence intensity prole.

This is in good agreement with the value of 0.089 suggested by the authors. Further, the value of Cpb is found to be 0.209. This gives a value of the wake parameter, k=1.10. From the power spectrum of pressure shown in Fig. 11, for a tap in the wake (Tap no. 6), it is found that the peak occurs at the shedding frequency of 23.5 Hz. The corresponding Strouhal number is computed as 0.181. Hence using Eq.

Fig. 8.

Mean pressure distribution on the circular cylinder, z=35 cm.

Fig. 11. no. 6).

Spectrum of pressure for a tap in the wake (z=35 cm, tap

518

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

(11), the Grifn universal Strouhal number, G, is computed as equal to 0.067. Thus the experimental data on the circular cylinder measured by the authors under simulated atmospheric ow conditions, exhibit values of C L,V and G as equal to 0.088 and 0.067. This further supports the validity of the hypothesis discussed earlier. From the foregoing discussions, it may be stated that since the value of G is close to 0.065 (with a cov of 8%), independent of Reynolds number, both in subcritical and transcritical regimes, it becomes possible to compute the value of conventional Strouhal number, S, for any individual test case, be it in a wind tunnel or in a full-scale study, provided corresponding values of CD and Cpb or k are known. Further, as discussed earlier, the rms value of lift coefcient due to vortex shedding, C L,V shows a mean value equal to 0.089 (with a cov of 18%), independent of Re number based on both wind tunnel and full-scale test data published. In other words, the observations that the values of C L,V and G being almost invariant with change in Reynolds number and that G is directly related to Sz in every individual case are adequate reasons to support the claim that the wind tunnel tests can be considered as a reliable method (even though conducted with relaxation of Re number similarity) to predict the values of Strouhal number Sz and C L,V corresponding to full-scale chimney conditions. 6.4. A procedure for prediction of Strouhal number and C L,V The following procedure is suggested to determine the values of C L,V and G from a pressure measurement study on a circular cylinder carried out either in wind tunnel or in full-scale conditions. Step 1: From the pressure measurement test data the following input parameters are initially evaluated. (a) mean drag coefcient (b) turbulence intensity corresponding to the height of the measurement (c) local rms lift coefcient, C L (d) correlation length, Lc,I corresponding to the height of the measurement (discussed in Appendix A) (e) base pressure coefcient, Cpb (f) Strouhal number based on spectrum of pressure from a tap in the wake Step 2: Using Eq. (4), C L,turb is computed Step 3: Using Eq. (6), C L,VS is computed Step 4: C L,V=(Lc,i/3.4d)*C L,VS and this value is expected to be close to 0.089 (with a cov of 18%), independent of the test Reynolds number Step 5: Evaluate wake parameter, k using Eq. (12) Step 6: Compute Grifn universal Strouhal number,

G using Eq. (11) and this is expected to be close to 0.065 with a cov of 8%

7. Conclusions A new empirical method is presented for correlating the values of rms lift coefcient, C L, and Strouhal number, S relevant to full-scale chimney conditions based on corresponding values on circular cylinders in properly simulated boundary layer wind tunnel results. It is hypothesized that at any given height, the modied value of rms lift coefcient due only to vortex shedding, C L,V attains a mean value 0.089 (with a cov of 18%), independent of Re number regime. This hypothesis is validated using the test data measured by the authors and also the published test results in the literature by Kareem, Garg and Niemann, Cheung and Melbourne, Vickery and Clark, Waldeck, Sanada et al., Ruscheweyh and Davenport which include both wind tunnel and fullscale experiments. Similarly, all these data yield a Grifn universal Strouhal number equal to about 0.065 (with a cov of 8%), independent of Re number. In view of the above, the authors conclude that wind tunnel experiments can be viewed as reliable tools for extrapolating/predicting values of C L,V and S corresponding to full-scale conditions. Also, the wake parameter, k is found to be linearly related to the turbulence intensity. A procedure for estimating Grifn universal Strouhal number, G and C L,V is suggested. Acknowledgements This paper is published with the kind permission of the Director, Structural Engineering Research Centre, Madras.

Appendix A. Correlation length The uctuating lift force at any location is generally imperfectly correlated with uctuating lift with some other location. This correlation is usually represented by a correlation length, which is expressed in multiples of diameter of the structure. The correlation length between two points, z1 and z2 is evaluated by the integration of the correlation coefcient with respect to the separation distance, r=|z2 z1|. The correlation length can be obtained using the correlation coefcient, R(r), as follows: Lc,i
0

R(r)dr

(16)

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

519

In the present study, the spatial coherence of the pressures in the ow has been determined by the two-point lateral correlations at zero time lag. The correlation coefcient, R(r), between two signals X and Y is evaluated as the ratio of the cross covariance, Cxy, to the product of individual rms values, (sxsy). In practice, for narrow band correlations such as vortex shedding, the correaltion coefcient can be expressed by a negative exponential function as [29]: R(r) exp( c(r/d)) in which c r/d dimensionless coefcient normalized separation distance (17)

in which c From Eqs. (14) and (15), for a cylinder with nite height, h, we get (18)

Lc,i/d [(1 exp( c(h/d)))/c]

References
[1] Blackburn HM, Melbourne WH. Cross ow response of slender circular cylindrical structuresprediction models and recent experimental results. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1993;49:16776. [2] Vickery BJ. Progress and problems in the prediction of the response of prototype structures to vortex induced excitation. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1990;33:18196. [3] Simiu E, Scanlan RH. Wind effects on structures. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1986. [4] Kareem A, Cheng CM, Lu PC. Pressure and force uctuations on isolated cylinders of nite height in boundary layer ows. J Fluids Struct 1989;3:481508. [5] Kareem A. A crosswind response of reinforced concrete chimneys. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1992;4144:214152. [6] Vickery BJ, Clark AW. Lift or crosswind response of tapered stacks. J Struct Div ASCE 1972;98:120. [7] Vickery BJ, Basu RI. Acrosswind vibration of structures of circular cross section, parts 1 and 2. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1983;12:4997. [8] Vickery BJ, Basu RI. The response of reinforced concrete chimneys to vortex shedding. Eng Struct 1984;6:32433. [9] Vickery BJ, Daly A. Wind Tunnel modelling as a means of predicting response of chimneys to vortex shedding. Eng Struct 1984;6:3648. [10] Vickery BJ. Acrosswind loading on reinforced concrete chimneys of circular section. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Strategies for Design and Construction of Structures to Mitigate Damage Due to Cyclones, Structural Engineering Research Centre, Madras, India, 1994:75-105. [11] CICIND, Model code for concrete chimneyspart A, The Shell, Zurich, 1984. [12] ACI-307, Standard practice for the design and construction of cast-in place reinforced concrete chimneys, (ACI-307-88), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1988.

[13] IS:4998-(Part-2)-, Criteria for design of reinforced concrete chimneys, BIS, New Delhi, 1992. [14] Scruton C. On the wind excited oscillations of stacks, towers and masts. In: Proceedings of the 1st ICWE. London: HMSO, 1963:798836. [15] Vickery BJ. The aeroelastic modelling of chimneys and towers. In: Rheinhold TA, editor. Proceedings of the Wind Tunnel Modelling for Civil Engineering Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982:40828. [16] Schnabel W, Plate EJ. Prototype and model experiments on wind induced vibrations of a steel tower. In: Proceedings of the 5th ICWE, Colorado, USA, 1980;2:75768. [17] Achenbach E, Heinecke E. On vortex shedding from smooth and rough cylinders in the range of Reynolds numbers from 6103 to 5106. J Fluid Mech 1981;109:23951. [18] Niemann HJ, Holscher N. A review of recent experiments on the ow past circular cylinders. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1990;33:197209. [19] Wooten LR, Scruton C. Aerodynamic stability. In: Proceedings of CIRIA, Publications on The modern design of wind sensitive structures, UK, paper 5:1970:6580. [20] Blevins RD. Flow induced vibration. 2nd ed. New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold, 1990. [21] Garg RK, Niemann HJ. On three ditttensionality of uctuatittg aerodynamics forces on circular cylindrical structures. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Wind Engineering, New Delhi, India, 1995:12941. [22] Waldeck JL. The measured and predicted response of a 300 m concrete chimney. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1992;41:22940. [23] Sanada S, Suzuki M, Matsumoto H. Full-scale measurements of wind force acting on a 200 m concrete chimney and the chimney response. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1992;43:216576. [24] Cheng CM. Acrosswind response of towers and stacks of circular cross section. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Houston, USA, 1984. [25] Li QS, Melbourne WH. Effects of turbulence on surface pressures of a at plate and rectangular cylinders in separated and reattached ows. In: Proceedings of the 9th ICWE, New Delhi, 1995:16576. [26] Melbourne WH. Predicting the crosswind response of masts and structural members. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1997;69(7071):91 103. [27] Cheung JCK, Melbourne WH. Turbulence effects of some aerodynamic parameters of a circular cylinder at supercritical Reynolds numbers. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1983;14:399410. [28] Grifn OM. Universal similarity in the wakes of stationary and vibrating bluff structures. In Cermak JE, editor. Pergamon Press, Wind engineering. 1980;1:60717. [29] Howell JF, Novak M. Vortex shedding from circular cylinders in turbulent ow. In Cermak JE, editor. Pergamon Press, Wind engineering. 1980;1:61929. [30] Adachi T. Effects of surface roughness on the universal Strouhal number over the wide Reynolds number range. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1997;69(7071):399412. [31] Cook NJ. Designers guide to wind loading of building structures. In: Part 1, Building research establishments., 1st ed. Oxford: Butterworths, 1985. [32] Basu RI. Aerodynamic forces on structures of circular cross sectionpart 2the inuence of turbulence and three dimensional effects. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1986;24:3369. [33] Kessler H. Wind forces and strains of reinforced concrete chimneys. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1989;32:1817. [34] Erbacher JM, Plate EJ. Measurement of velocity near and pressure on a cylindrical tower located on irregular terrain. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1991;38:16784. [35] Melbourne WH, Cheung JCK, Goddard CR. Response to wind action of 265 m Mount Isa stack. J Struct Eng ASCE 1985;109:256177.

520

S. Arunachalam et al. / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 502520

[36] Rusecheweyh H. Wind loadings on the television tower, Hamburg, Germany. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1976;1:31533. [37] Wieringa J. Updating the Davenport roughness classication. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1992;4144:35768. [38] Davenport AG. Perspectives on the full-scale measurement of wind effects. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1975;1:2354. [39] Papoulis A. Probability, random variables and stochastic processes. New York: McGraw Hill, 1991.

[40] Gu ZF, Sun TF, He DX, Zhang LL. Two circular cylinders in high turbulence at super-critical Reynolds number. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 1993;49:37988. [41] Fox TA, Apelt CJ, West GS. The aerodynamic disturbance caused by the free-ends of a circular cylinder immersed in a uniform ow. J Wind Eng and Ind Aero 1993;49:389400.