Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Earthquake response of tall reinforced concrete chimneys

John L. Wilson
The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Received 4 September 2001; received in revised form 7 June 2002; accepted 26 June 2002

Abstract
The results from an experimental program have been used to develop a non-linear dynamic analysis procedure for evaluating
the inelastic response of tall reinforced concrete chimney structures. The procedure is used to study the inelastic response of ten
chimneys, ranging in height from 115 m to 301 m subject to earthquake excitation. Based on the study, a series of code design
recommendations have been prepared and incorporated into the 2001 CICIND code to encourage reliance on the development of
ductility in reinforced concrete chimneys and to prevent the formation of brittle failure modes. The basis for the selection of a
structural response factor of R=2 which halves the seismic design forces is presented. The design recommendations result in both
improved performance and cost savings of up to 20% compared with designs undertaken with the 1998 ACI307 and 1998 CICIND codes.
2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Chimneys; Seismic; Ductility; Earthquake forces; Design codes; Inelastic analyses

1. Introduction
Codes of practice around the world provide conservative guidelines for the aseismic design of tall reinforced
concrete chimneys in the belief that such structures
would behave in a brittle manner when subject to severe
earthquake excitation. This has resulted in reinforced
concrete chimneys being prohibitively expensive in
regions of high seismicity. It has recently been established from an experimental program that reinforced
concrete chimneys respond in a moderately ductile manner under severe reverse cycle loading through yielding
of the reinforcement in tension provided that the sections
possess a reasonable curvature capacity [1].
The results from the experimental program have been
used to develop a non linear dynamic procedure for evaluating the inelastic response of tall reinforced concrete
chimney structures described in this paper. The procedure, which incorporates a cantilever model with discrete plastic hinges is used to study the response of ten
chimneys, ranging in height from 115 m to 301 m, to
severe earthquake excitation. In particular, the response
behaviour and the failure modes of these chimneys asso-

E-mail address: j.wilson@civag.unimelb.edu.au (J.L. Wilson).

0141-0296/03/$ - see front matter 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 9 8 - 6

ciated with an ensemble of earthquake ground motions

is described.
Based on the non linear dynamic study, a series of
code design recommendations have been prepared which
encourage the development of ductile behaviour to dissipate the seismic energy and prevent the formation of
brittle failure modes. These recommendations have been
incorporated into the 2001 CICIND code [2] for the
design of reinforced concrete chimneys and result in
cheaper chimneys which perform better under earthquake excitation (CICIND is a French acronym for International Committee on Industrial chimneys). The justification for the selection of a structural response factor
of R=2 which reduces the seismic design forces and satisfies both the serviceability and structural stability limit
states is presented using a deterministic approach.
Finally, a comparison of the cost and performance of a
245 m tall chimney designed to the proposed seismic
code provisions is made with the 1998 ACI 307, 1998
CICIND, 1996 EC8-3 and 1997 UBC codes of practice
[25].
The paper focuses on the behaviour of the windshield
and does not address the response of the flue liner or the
foundation in any detail. However it is noted that a top
hung steel flue system has significant structural advantages over other flue systems in seismic regions since a

12

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

Nomenclature
ae
af
aT
b
c
D
E
EIsec
EIeff
Fc
fc
fy
IF
Ig
Kzz
Kx
LF
M
Mu
Md
Me
My
n
R
t
V
Vd
Ve
W
fo
fu
fy
rv
m
mc
m
md
ms
v
vd

elastic acceleration coefficient

failure acceleration coefficient
acceleration coefficient associated with a return period T years
acceleration ratio=af/ae
acceleration ratio=a2475/a475
windshield mean diameter
elastic modulus of concrete=30,000 MPa
secant stiffness of windshield
effective stiffness of windshield
concrete compressive strength
axial compressive stress
yield stress
importance factor
gross second moment of area
rotational stiffness
translational stiffness
load factor
moment demand
ultimate moment capacity
base bending momentwith overstrength
base bending momentnominal elastic design
yield moment
normalised axial force
structural response factor
windshield thickness
shear force
shear forcewith overstrength
shear forcenominal elastic design
weight of structure
moment overstrength factor
ultimate curvature
yield curvature
longitudinal steel ratio (%)
curvature ductility
curvature ductility capacity
base moment overstrength factor
dynamic moment magnification factor
large displacement moment magnification factor
shear overstrength factor
dynamic shear magnification factor

lighter thinner flue in tension can be used. Such tension

systems have some inherent ductility and can accommodate the installation of energy dissipation devices at the
lateral support locations.

2. Experimental results
Four reinforced concrete pipes of length 4565 mm,
diameter 1200 mm, thickness 30 mm and possessing
1.0%, 0.25%, 0.25% and 0.85% effective longitudinal

reinforcement ratios (test units 14 respectively) were

fabricated and arranged as horizontal cantilevers with
one end free and the other fixed as shown in Fig. 1. The
specimens were subjected to a constant axial stress of 2
MPa (representative of chimney structures) and tested
through the application of a cyclic transverse load at the
free end. The cyclic load was applied under displacement control with increasing displacements each cycle
of m=0.75, 1, 2, 3 etc until failure. In constructing
the models the laws of similitude were followed so that
the results were representative of full scale prototypes.

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

Fig. 1.

General arrangement of test set-up.

In particular, the following key parameters were representative: (a) diameter/thickness ratio of D/t=40, (b)
axial stress level of fc / Fc 0.05, (c) longitudinal steel
ratio rv=0.251.0% and (d) shear span ratio M/VD=3.8
(the results from a number of inelastic analyses indicated
that the average shear span ratio for full scale chimneys
subject to earthquake excitation were in the range
M/VD=35).
Test units 1 and 4 behaved in a ductile and tough
manner under cyclic loading as demonstrated from the
force deflection hysteresis loops for test unit 1 shown in
Fig. 2. A series of circumferential cracks developed
along the length of the pipe in units 1 and 4, which
opened and closed and widened as the longitudinal
strains increased on subsequent cycles. In contrast, the
ductility associated with units 2 and 3 was smaller than
units 1 and 4 due to the low reinforcement ratio. This
low reinforcement ratio resulted in the undesirable feature of the cracking moment exceeding the ultimate section capacity and consequently the development of only
a single circumferential crack.
The hysteresis shapes associated with units 14 were

Fig. 2.

Normalised moment versus drift for test unit 1.

13

stable with increasing displacements resulting in an

increase in the bending moments associated with the
strain hardening of the reinforcement. The reduction in
stiffness associated with an increase in ductility is
characteristic of the closure of wide cracks, softening of
the concrete matrix and the softening of the reinforcement due to the Bauschinger effect. This ductile behaviour was achieved through yielding of the reinforcement
in tension rather than non linear compressive behaviour
of the concrete as demonstrated in Fig. 3 for test unit
1. The strains were measured using LVDT transducers
mounted on the concrete surface over gauge lengths of
100 mm and 200 mm.
The failure of the pipes after some 813 cycles was
initiated by a combination of the loss of the concrete
cover (through progressive deformation in the vicinity
of the circumferential cracks as the concrete was cycled
back and forth from extreme tension to compression) and
the longitudinal steel buckling and fracturing (due to low
cycle fatigue and the reduced elastic modulus associated
with the Bauschinger effect). A more detailed description of the experimental tests is provided in references
[1,6,7].

3. Earthquake analysis procedure for inelastic

chimneys
3.1. Literature review
The earthquake design and analysis of chimneys subjected to earthquake excitation has typically been undertaken using linear dynamic procedures such as the
response spectrum or time history modal analysis techniques. Rumman [810] published a number of papers
describing the calculation of seismic forces for
reinforced concrete chimneys using the response spectrum technique some thirty years ago. Rumman [11] also
established co-efficients for estimating the modal periods
and associated mode shapes of reinforced concrete chimneys that vary linearly in both mean diameter and thickness. Such methods which were very useful for estimating modal shear forces and bending moments have been
superseded by finite element analysis software packages

Fig. 3. Normalised moment vs. extreme fibre strain for test unit 1
(tension strain denoted negative strain).

14

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

which can perform dynamic analyses relatively simply

and cost effectively. The modal analysis method accurately predicts the response of tall reinforced concrete
chimneys in the elastic range as confirmed from a number of experimental studies carried out on real chimneys
using ambient wind vibrations [1216].
However, the response of tall chimneys to severe
earthquake ground motions may require the stack to
respond beyond the elastic range. A literature review
indicated that few studies involving inelastic analyses
have been undertaken [1724]. In most of the studies the
inelastic behaviour of the chimney was represented by a
stick model using continuous fibre elements to explicitly
represent the degrading hysteresis loops of the concrete
and the reinforcement. Although these methods provide
a useful insight into the inelastic response of chimneys,
they assume that all sections are fully cracked and therefore underestimate the stiffness since both the tension
stiffening effect and the tensile strength of concrete are
ignored. Ignoring both effects results in a unrealistically
flexible chimney particularly with the low longitudinal
reinforcement ratios typically specified in reinforced
concrete chimneys. The studies suggested that considerable ductility was available in reinforced concrete chimneys through the yielding of reinforcement in tension.
The conclusions were however qualified in the recognition that the inclusion of tension stiffening effects
would have stiffened the chimneys and resulted in the
calculation of lower levels of ground shaking needed to
cause failure.
In contrast, the discrete plastic hinge approach allows
the analyst to directly model the effective stiffness of
the chimney to account for tension stiffening effects and
provides some choice in the shape of the hysteresis loop
selected for modelling the non linear and inelastic
behaviour. In addition the discrete plastic hinge approach
is computationally more efficient, and for these reasons
has been selected as the preferred method for studying
the aseismic response of reinforced concrete chimneys,
using the inelastic analysis program [25]. The procedure
developed by the author involves a number of steps
which are summarised and discussed in the following
sub sections [6,26]. The procedure assumes that the
chimney has been designed in accordance with the seismic design guidelines outlined in the 2001 CICIND code
[2] so that the inelastic chimney response is dominated
by flexural action without the development of brittle
modes of failure, such as local failures around openings,
shear failures or failures of the foundation system.
3.2. Recommended procedure

Step 1: The chimney is modelled as a stick cantilever

with masses lumped at approximately 10 nodes

and connected by elements reflecting the average geometrical sectional properties.

Step 2: Plastic hinges are modelled at the base of each
element using appropriate yield and ultimate
moment capacities calculated for each section.
A plastic hinge length equal to 20% of the chimney diameter is recommended based on the
experimental results [1].
Step 3: A yield moment equal to 70% of the ultimate
moment is considered representative for typical
chimney sections based on experimental and
theoretical results. (The My/Mu ratio was studied
and found to vary over a narrow range between
0.70.8 for rv=0.52.0% and fc / Fc 00.10
considered typical for reinforced concrete
chimneys[6].)
Step 4: The hysteretic behaviour of the plastic hinges is
represented by the modified Takeda hysteresis
model which best approximates the actual hysteretic behaviour obtained experimentally [1].
Background damping of 5% is assumed to
model the energy losses associated with minor
cracking.
Step 5: A value of 0.50 EIg is considered a conservative
value (from the perspective of predicted earthquake induced forces) for modelling the stiffness properties of a cracked chimney in an
inelastic time history analysis and account for
the increased stiffness caused by tension stiffening effects [1,6]. This effective stiffness value is
consistent with code recommendations for the
inelastic analysis of lightly loaded column
elements in frames and for wall elements in
buildings [2729]. (It is recognised that this
nominal effective stiffness value (EIeff=0.50 EIg)
is higher than the secant stiffness value of
EIsec=My/fy which is representative of a fully
cracked section and hence not directly appropriate for an inelastic time history analysis).
Step 6: The failure criteria for the chimney is based on
the curvature demand predicted from an inelastic time history analysis reaching the curvature
capacity fu at a particular node. The curvature
capacity is calculated at each node of the chimney model assuming plane sections remain plane
and with limiting compressive and tensile
strains of 0.3% and 5% respectively. The curvature capacity fu is plotted in Fig. 4 in terms of
the longitudinal reinforcment ratio (rv%) and
the axial stress ratio (n fc / Fc).
Step 7: An ensemble of at least three times history
ground motions appropriate for the site are
applied to the base of the chimney and the
maximum curvature demand is calculated at
each plastic hinge located at each node. This
analysis is repeated with the accelerogram

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

15

reinforcement ratios are summarised in Table 1. The

inelastic seismic response of this 245 m tall chimney
was then studied using six representative accelerograms.
4.2. Chimney analyses

Fig. 4. Curvature capacity (fuD) vs. axial stress ratio and reinforcement ratio.

scaled by the peak ground acceleration until the

threshold curvature capacity is reached, at
which point the chimney is deemed to have failed.

4. Seismic response of a 245 m tall chimney

4.1. Chimney properties
The elastic and inelastic response of a 245 m tapered
reinforced concrete chimney subject to earthquake excitation was studied [6,7]. The diameter of the chimney
varied from 16.8m at the top to 26.0 m at the base whilst
the thickness ranged from 0.35 m to 0.70 m, respectively. The chimney was founded on piles with foundation compliance represented by a horizontal spring
(Kx=3E3 MN/m) and a rotational spring (Kzz=4.8E6
MNm/rad). A fundamental period of 4.2 s was calculated
for the uncracked chimney.
The earthquake actions were calculated from the 1994
UBC [5] soft soil response spectrum scaled with an
acceleration co-efficient of 0.15 g which corresponded
to a 1 in 475 year event and represented a region of
moderate seismicity. The application of the 1.4 load factor in accordance with the 1998 CICIND [2] recommendations increased the nominal elastic design earthquake
to ae=0.21 g. The chimney was detailed for ductility by
providing overstrength around the openings to that the
base remained essentially elastic thereby encouraging
inelastic flexural behaviour to occur at higher levels in
the windshield. The wind actions were representative of
a temperate wind environment, and were found to be
significantly less than the lateral forces resulting from
earthquake excitation.
Based on the critical bending moments at each of the
nodes, the required quantity of longitudinal reinforcement was calculated in accordance with the recommendations for the ultimate limit state strength design of
reinforced concrete chimneys using the CICIND and
ACI codes[2,3]. The chimney properties including the
nodal co-ordinates, diameter, thickness and longitudinal

An elastic time history analysis of the chimney was

undertaken in accordance with the 1998 CICIND [2] recommendations assuming 5% damping and gross section
properties. The resulting elastic bending moments were
evaluated and compared with the ultimate moment
capacities at each node, and the accelerogram scaled so
that the ratio of the moment demand to moment capacity
equaled but did not exceed unity at the critical node.
The resulting scaled peak ground acceleration for that
accelerogram was deemed the elastic acceleration
value ae. The chimney was then analysed considering
inelastic behaviour in accordance with the method outlined in Section 3.2. Each of the six accelerograms were
scaled until the curvature demand exceeded the curvature capacity at one of the plastic hinges, at which the
chimney was deemed to have failed. The resulting scaled
peak ground acceleration was deemed the failure acceleration value af. The acceleration ratio b=af/ae provides
a valuable insight for assessing the performance of the
chimney in the inelastic range, with a ratio close to unity
suggesting a brittle structure whilst a ratio in excess of
three to four implying some ductility. The effects of P
were studied and found not to be important due to the
relatively low axial forces and lateral displacements.
The ratio of the maximum curvature demand to corresponding curvature capacity has been plotted as a function of normalised height (height divided by total height
of chimney) in Fig. 5 for each of the six ground motions
AF. (Details of the six ground motions are provided
in Appendix 1.) The acceleration values ae, af and the
acceleration ratio, b have been listed in Table 2. The
acceleration ratio ranged from 5 to 8 for the six different
accelerograms and indicated that the chimney was not
brittle but could respond in the inelastic range with some
ductility. The critical section of the chimney was in the
region 0.30 to 0.75 of the chimney height and indicated
that the inelastic behaviour was widespread with the formation of multiple plastic hinges rather than being confined to one plastic hinge location as shown in Fig. 7b.
The response of the chimney to the six accelerograms
was quite varied and reflected the different frequency
and pulse characteristics of the ground motions.
The behaviour of a tall chimney responding to earthquake excitation is quite complex with higher mode
effects dominating. The total accelerations are not in
phase up the height of the chimney and at any instant
of time the accelerations at different sections of the
chimney could be acting in opposite directions. This is
contrary to the simplistic acceleration distribution
assumed in a static pushover analysis where inertial

16

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

Table 1
Geometry and properties of 245m chimney
Node

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Height (m)

Diameter (m)

245
210
180
150
120
90
60
30
0

16.80
16.80
16.80
16.80
16.80
17.04
18.16
20.00
28.00

Thickness (m)

0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.365
0.410
0.700
0.700

D/t

48
48
48
48
48
47
44
29
37

n fc / Fc

0
0.021
0.038
0.056
0.074
0.086
0.089
0.061
0.061

ae=0.21 g
rv (%)

fu D

0.50
0.50
0.78
0.85
0.89
0.87
0.97
0.80
0.80

0.053
0.053
0.053
0.052
0.038
0.034
0.030
0.051
0.051

Fig. 5. Ratio of maximum curvature demand to curvature capacity (f/fu) over the height of a 245 m chimney for ground motions AF.

Table 2
Ratio of failure to elastic acceleration values for 245m Chimney
Node

ae (g)
af (g)
b=af /ae

Ground motions
A

0.13
0.75
6

0.19
1.50
6

0.26
1.86
7

0.37
1.85
5

0.22
1.65
7.5

0.16
0.80
5

forces at all nodes of the structure are assumed to be

moving in phase in one direction. The displacements are
generally in phase up the height of the chimney with a
period of oscillation in the order of 6 s resembling a first
mode type response. The maximum displacement at the
top of the chimney was approximately 5.0 m and represented a 2% drift (tip displacement/chimney height).
The bending moment and normalised curvature ductility
demand is generally inphase with the displacement
response although the influence of the higher mode
effects is evident. The time history plots indicated that
multiple plastic hinges develop and co-exist simultaneously up the height of the chimney.

A typical hysteresis plot of the moment versus curvature at the critical plastic hinge located at approx. 120
m above the base is shown in Fig. 6. The hysteresis
behaviour modelled using the modified Takeda hysteresis rule provides a good representation of the behaviour
observed in the experimental program. The maximum
curvature developed at the critical plastic hinge was
0.0018 m1 (0.034/D) which corresponded to a very
small plastic hinge rotation of 0.0061 radian or 0.35
degrees, assuming a plastic hinge length of 3.4 m (0.2D).
The number of complete inelastic cycles is very low and
in the order of 2, which reflects the response of a long
period structure to a relatively short duration earthquake.
Increasing the duration threefold to say 36 s would
increase the number of inelastic cycles to around 6, but
significantly most of these inelastic excursions would be
small and less than 50% of the ultimate curvature
capacity. The number of inelastic cycles is important
particularly for the performance of lapped splices since
it represents the number of occurrences the reinforced
concrete section could be subjected to severe tensile
strains followed by moderate compressive strains.
Consequently the effects of strength degradation and low
cycle fatigue should not be critical for tall reinforced
concrete chimneys subject to earthquake excitation.

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

17

Fig. 7. (a) Chimney acceleration and displacement response at 6.2 and 6.9 s. (b) Chimney bending moment and normalised curvature response
(f/fu) at 6.2 and 6.9 s.

Fig. 6. Moment curvature hysteretic behaviour at plastic hinge 120

m above base.

4.3. Chimney mode of failure

The chimney is deemed to fail when the normalised
moment curvature exceeds unity, which occurs at
approx. 6.9 s at a height of around 120 m. An explanation for the failure can be reasoned from Fig. 7(a) and
(b) which presents a plot of a series of instantaneous
acceleration, displacement, bending moment and normalised curvature values versus chimney height at 6.2 s
and 6.9 s. At 6.2 s the accelerations above the base are
all in phase and induce inertia forces that push the chimney in one direction, with a resulting bending moment
diagram that decreases with height, as would be
expected for a cantilever that has been effectively loaded
in one direction. This force pattern results in a maximum

displacement in the chimney at around 6.5 s. Between

6.2 s and 6.9 s the acceleration pattern changes dramatically, resulting in amplified inertia forces which change
direction over the lower 180 m of the chimney. This
results in the development of maximum bending
moments at a height of between 90 and 120 m and
causes the ultimate curvature to be exceeded at a height
of approx 120 m, which is defined as nominal failure.
Interestingly at this instance of nominal failure, the
bending moment at the base is quite small and has
reversed direction whilst the chimney deflections have
decreased.
This study has highlighted the complex dynamic
response of a typical reinforced concrete chimney under
earthquake excitation. The structure can be thought of
as a highly tuned profiled cantilever which is whippy
in nature and dominated by higher mode effects. The
behaviour of such a structure cannot be readily predicted using a simple static push over analysis nor by
a simple single degree of freedom substitute structure.
Overall dynamic stability of the chimney is maintained
as a result of the chimney sections possessing adequate
curvature ductility through the yielding of reinforcement combined with the nature of earthquake ground
motions that are characterised by a number of short duration high frequency pulses that continually change
direction.

18

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

5. Summary of case study chimneys

5.1. Ratio of failure to elastic peak ground
acceleration values
The detailed analyses carried out for the 245 m tall
chimney were repeated for a further nine chimneys ranging in height from 115 m to 301 m and similar results
were obtained [6,7]. The results of the analyses suggest
that a correlation exists between the global ductility of
the chimney (as assessed from the acceleration ratio
b=af/ae) and the local curvature capacity of the plastic
hinges at the critical sections within the chimneys as
summarised in Table 3. It is recommended that chimneys
be designed and detailed for moderate ductility so that
the minimum failure to elastic peak ground acceleration ratio exceeds four (af/ae4). This design objective
will enable the seismic design forces to be reduced by
the introduction of a structural response factor (ductility
or R factor) which will be discussed further in Section 6.
Based on the analyses a chimney could be defined as
moderately ductile provided that a minimum curvature
capacity of fu=0.03/D is provided over the height of the
chimney where inelastic action may be expected (i.e.
above the openings to around 80% of the chimney
height). The minimum ultimate curvature of fu=0.03/D
corresponds to a concrete compressive strain of 0.3%
and a steel tensile strain of 2.7%. This can be achieved
by limiting the longitudinal reinforcement percentage to
approx. rv(%)=2.4014n (where n is the ratio of the
axial stress to ultimate concrete compressive strength)
and indicates that for n=0, 0.05, 0.10 and 0.15, the
reinforcement ratio should not exceed r=2.4%, 1.7%,
1.0% and 0.3%, respectively.
5.2. Inelastic displacements
A study was also undertaken to compare the chimney
inelastic displacements corresponding to an acceleration
af=4ae with the elastic displacements associated with an
elastic acceleration, ae. The inelastic displacements of
the windshield are an important parameter when checking the likely performance of the chimney liners under
an extreme earthquake event. The ratio of the inelastic
to elastic displacements at the top of the chimney were
calculated for each of the fifty analyses carried out on
the case study chimneys. The results suggest that the
Table 3
Correlation between curvature capacity and overall chimney ductility
Minimum curvature
capacity

Acceleration ratio

Chimney ductility

fu0.03/D
u0.03/D

af/ae=23
af/ae4

Limited ductility
Moderate ductility

inelastic displacements were in the order of 25% greater

than the displacements calculated from an elastic analysis assuming the same input ground motion. The inelastic
tip displacement at the failure acceleration (af=4ae) was
typically in the order of 1% of the chimney height, with
a maximum drift value of 1.8% calculated. Such drift
values are less than the 23% limits typically specified
for building structures under extreme earthquake excitation [29,30].
5.3. Shear overstrength factors
An estimate needs to be made of the maximum shear
force that may develop in a chimney during an extreme
earthquake event to ensure that flexural inelastic action
develops and shear failure is prevented. The shear force
distribution that develops during an elastic dynamic
response is different from that resulting from a response
spectrum analysis. Further, a time history analysis carried out in the inelastic range will produce different
results from an elastic analysis performed using the same
earthquake ground motion. The maximum shear force Vd
that develops under inelastic action can be evaluated
from the product of the shear overstrength factor v and
the nominal design shear force Ve as follows:
Vd vVe

(1a)

and
v fovd

(1b)

The moment overstrength factor fo allows for overstrength in a section due to capacity reduction factors
and strain hardening of the reinforcement with values
typically in the range fo=1.21.5 depending on the
material overstrength factor, axial stress ratio, and longitudinal reinforcement ratio. The dynamic shear magnification factor vd allows for the increased shear
developed in a windshield responding inelastically due
to higher mode effects and the development of multiple
plastic hinges causing a change in the shear force distribution.
Similar effects have been observed by Goyal and
Maiti [20] who reported shear enhancement factors ranging from 1.8 to 2.4 for their case study chimneys. A
number of studies have been undertaken to evaluate the
dynamic shear effects associated with structural walls
[3133]. In all these studies, a single plastic hinge was
assumed to form at the base of the uniform wall, and
the dynamic shear effects were evaluated both analytically [32] and experimentally [31,33]. Whilst such wall
configurations are not typical of tall profiled chimneys,
the conclusions are consistent, demonstrating the importance of the higher mode effects in modifying the shear
force distribution. Paulay [28] recommends a dynamic
shear magnification factor between 1.0 and 1.8 for short

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

and tall structural walls responding inelastically respectively.

A study was undertaken to evaluate the dynamic shear
magnification factor, vd, associated with the case study
chimneys resulting from the application of an acceleration af=4ae. The shear force demand was evaluated
from the inelastic seismic analysis (af=4ae) for each
ground motion and compared with the nominal shear
forces, Ve, resulting from an elastic modal analysis using
the design response spectrum. The vd factor, defined as
the ratio of the inelastic to the nominal elastic design
shear forces, was then calculated. The shear forces were
magnified in different regions of the chimney depending
on the chimney geometry and characteristics of the
earthquake ground motion [6]
A statistical study was undertaken and the following
mean values were evaluated: vd=1.75 at the base of the
chimney (lower 10% of height), vd=1.0 at the top of
the chimney (upper 20% of height) and vd=1.55 in the
remaining intermediate region. The overall shear overstrength factors were then evaluated from the product of
fo=1.4 and vd resulting in v=2.5 at the base and
v=2.2 in the intermediate region. A shear overstrength
value of 1.0 is recommended near the top where inelastic
effects are minimal.
This additional shear demand is typically not critical
as the circumferential reinforcement required for ovalling wind moments usually provides sufficient shear
capacity for seismic design.
5.4. Base moment overstrength factor
The principles of capacity design dictate that the foundation and base of the chimney in the vicinity of the
openings be designed for overstrength to prevent the
development of brittle failure modes and encourage ductile flexural action in the windshield. The maximum base
moment Md that develops under inelastic action can be
evaluated from the product of the base moment overstrength factor m and the nominal elastic design bending moment Me as follows:
Md mMe

(2a)

and
m fomdms

(2b)

An overall base moment overstrength factor of

m=1.5 is recommended based on dynamic (md) and
large displacement (ms) moment magnification mean
values of md=1.05 and ms=1.05, respectively
(obtained from analyses) combined with a reasonable
moment overstrength value of fo=1.4. The low values
of ms and md indicates that in tall chimneys the amplification effects due to P effects are minimal and that
the dynamic amplification of the base bending moment

19

is small due to the moments in the upper sections being

limited through the formation of multiple plastic hinges.
6. 2001 CICIND Code Recommendations
6.1. Design Philosophy
The seismic design approach described in this section
which has been incorporated into the 2001 CICIND code
[2] is based on dual performance criteria:
1. designing the chimney elastically to resist earthquake
induced forces considered reasonable for a serviceability limit state earthquake event (SLS), and
2. designing the chimney with sufficient ductility so that
the chimney will not collapse when subject to an
extreme earthquake event at the structural stability
limit state (SSLS).
In regions of moderate to high seismicity it is recommended that chimneys be designed for ductility
(R=2). This design strategy will result in chimneys that
are both economical and sufficiently ductile to survive
an extreme earthquake event [26].
6.2. Seismic actions
6.2.1. Return period
The design basis earthquake is a representative earthquake associated with a return period of 475 years (i.e.
10% chance of exceedance in 50 years).
6.2.2. Elastic response
The elastic response of the chimney shall be calculated assuming gross section properties and using an
appropriate response spectrum for the site with 5% critical damping and 50% shape bound probability. Sufficient number of modes shall be included so that at least
90% of the mass of the chimney is accounted for in the
modal analysis
6.2.3. Seismic design actions
The seismic design actions shall be obtained from the
elastic response by multiplying the actions by an importance factor (IF) and dividing by a structural response
factor (R) to account for ductility.
6.2.3.1. Importance factor The importance factor is
dependent on the importance class of the chimney:
Class 1: IF=1.0
Class 2: IF=1.4.
6.2.3.2. Structural response factor
The structural
response factor is dependent on the level of seismic
detailing:

20

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

R=1.0 No specific seismic detailing

R=2.0 Specific design requirements (as outlined in Section 6.3).
6.3. General seismic design and detailing
requirements associated with R=2
6.3.1. General capacity design principles
The design of the chimney should be consistent with
the principles of capacity design. The flexural and shear
capacities of the foundation system and the shell in the
vicinity of openings should be designed for overstrength
so that inelastic flexural behaviour will develop in the
ductile regions of the windshield away from significant
openings. In particular the following specific detailing
requirements should be satisfied to ensure ductile behaviour.
6.3.2. Specific detailing and design requirements
1. Base moment overstrength to prevent flexural failure
developing at the chimney base (in the vicinity of
openings) and in the foundation. The recommended
moment overstrength factor is m=1.5.
2. Shear overstrength factors to discourage shear failure
in the windshield and foundations. The recommended
shear overstrength factors to be applied to the nominal
design shear forces are: v=2.5 (010% chimney
height), v=2.2 (1080% chimney height), v=1.0
(80100% chimney height).
3. Curvature capacity in the windshield over the range
10%80% of chimney height to exceed 0.03/D (i.e.
fuD 0.03). This will ensure that the compression
strains and compression zone are small (with a neutral
axis depth less than four times the wall thickness for
a typical windshield) and will alleviate the need for
confinement steel. The limiting curvature capacity of
0.03/D can be achieved by limiting the maximum
longitudinal steel reinforcement percentage to
rv=2.4014n, where n is the axial stress ratio (n
fc / Fc) and fy=400 MPa.
4. Ultimate moment capacity of the chimney between
the base and 80% of the chimney height exceeds the
cracking moment capacity so that plastic hinges of
reasonable length can develop.
5. Longitudinal steel reinforcement is ductile with an
ultimate tensile strain in excess of 1015%, consistent
with the recommendations for the ductile response of
any reinforced concrete structure.
6. Staggered longitudinal splices are specified so that at
any cross section not greater than 50% of the
reinforcement bars are spliced to prevent a plane of
weakness from developing. It is recommended that
the standard development length be increased by 30%
to provide additional protection from bond failure
under cyclic loading.

7. Comparison of proposed code provisions with

other codes of practice
This section compares the cost and performance of a
245 metre tall chimney (see Section 4) designed using
the limited ductility design provisions of the 2001 CICIND code [2] with designs undertaken using the following codes of practice: 1998 CICIND, 1998 ACI 307,
1997 UBC and 1996 EC8-3 [25]. The earthquake forces
were described by the normalised soft soil elastic
response spectrum (ERS) specified in the 1994 edition
of the UBC [5]. An acceleration co-efficient corresponding to the 475 year return period event of a475=0.30 g
was selected to reflect a region of moderately high seismicity. The wind forces reflected a temperate wind
regime and were found to be significantly less than the
earthquake forces. The costs have been calculated on the
basis of standard supply and construction rates for concrete US$280/m3 and for reinforcement (longitudinal and
circumferential) US$1400/tonne. Further details of the
study are provided in [6,7,34].
The limited ductility design (LDD) approach recommended in the 2001 CICIND code (and outlined in
the previous section) is the most cost effective aseismic
design strategy and allows the earthquake forces to be
reduced for ductility by encouraging the simultaneous
formation of multiple plastic hinges in the windshield
away from the openings and foundation system. The
development of multiple plastic hinges has the advantage
that the inelastic behaviour and curvature demand will
be spread over a wider region of the chimney to dissipate
the seismic energy, and will limit the seismic forces that
are transmitted to the foundation system. The associated
nominal elastic earthquake acceleration value is
ae=0.21 g (LF=1.0, IF=1.4 and R=2) with a failure
acceleration value in excess of af=0.80 g (including the
effects of overstrength will further increase af), and a
windshield cost in the order of US$2.5 million. (Further
justification for the recommendation of a structural
response factor R=2 is provided in Appendix 2).
The elastic seismic design approach recommended in
the 1998 CICIND and 1998 ACI307 encourages elastic
behaviour with no requirements for ductility. The nominal elastic design earthquake (used to scale the normalised response spectrum and to calculate the ultimate
bending moments in the windshield) is effectively
ae=0.42 g (LF=1.4, IF=1.0 and R=1.0) for the CICIND
code, with an associated windshield cost in the order of
US$3.25 million. In contrast, the ACI code specifies factors of LF=1.43 (reduced from LF=1.87 in the 1995
edition), IF=1.0 and R=1.33, resulting in ae=0.32 g and
a windshield cost in the order of US$2.8 million. In
addition, the load factors specified for the design of the
foundations in ACI307 are lower than those specified for
the design of the windshield, which is contrary to normal
capacity design principles for structures. Significantly,

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

both codes encourage chimneys to be designed elastically without consideration to the likely mode of failure,
and consequently under extreme ground shaking the
chimneys may fail in a brittle and catastrophic manner
around the openings or in the foundation system.
Further, with the reduced earthquake forces specified in
ACI307, the chimneys could be more vulnerable than
equivalent designs undertaken using the 1998 CICIND
code. A further study of six chimneys ranging in height
from 115m to 300m suggest that the LDD approach recommended in the 2001 CICIND code results in windshield cost savings in the order of 20% and 10% compared with the 1998 CICIND and 1998 ACI307 methods,
respectively. Additional cost savings would be associated with the design of the foundation system.
UBC-97 allows the earthquake design forces to be
reduced for ductility through the introduction of a ductility factor, without specifying any special design and
detailing requirements. Further, the R factor recommended is both site and natural period dependent and
consequently does not appear to have a totally rational
basis. The nominal elastic design earthquake associated
with the UBC design for this chimney configuration is
ae=0.21 g (LF=1.0, IF=1.0 and R=1.5) with an associated
windshield cost of US$2.5 million.
EC8-3 recommends the chimney be designed to
encourage ductility through the formation of one plastic
hinge using capacity design principles. The overstrength
factors recommended are considered by the author to be
non-conservative due to higher mode effects significantly magnifying the chimney response. The nominal
elastic design earthquake acceleration is effectively
ae=0.14 g (IF=1.4, R=3) at the hinge and ae=0.21 g
(LF=1.0, IF=1.4 and R=2) away from the hinge resulting
in a windshield costing in the order of US$2.3 million.
However, if the overstrength factors are increased in the
chimney to account for the higher mode effects then the
cost increases to US$3.2 million. In addition the concentration of the damage and inelastic behaviour at one
location has further design, detailing, construction and
cost implications.
8. Conclusions
1. A discretised inelastic frame model was developed
based on the results from an experimental study. The
cantilever model using discrete plastic hinges was
more accurate and computationally more efficient
than other models using continuous finite element
model techniques, and produced reasonable estimates
of the inelastic response of a chimney to earthquake
excitation. The inelastic and elastic response of 10
case study chimneys (which had been designed for
moderate ductility) to six different earthquake ground
motions were studied from which the following conclusions could be drawn:

21

(a) Tall reinforced concrete chimneys respond in a complex manner under earthquake excitation. The structure can be thought of as a highly tuned profiled cantilever which is whippy in nature and dominated
by higher mode effects.
(b) The inelastic response of a chimney cannot be readily predicted using linear static or non linear static
procedures such as a simple static push over analysis
or by a single degree of freedom substitute structure.
(c) The chimney responds inelastically with the development of multiple plastic hinges in the windshield.
Higher mode effects dominate the response with significant inelastic deformations typically concentrated
over the region between 3080% of the chimney
height.
(d) A moderately ductile chimney, which responds
inelastically through the formation of multiple plastic hinges, can sustain earthquake ground shaking at
a level at least four times greater than the motion
needed to cause the elastic moment demand to
exceed the ultimate moment capacity, assuming
uncracked section properties. This result is significant as it implies that a chimney designed elastically
using uncracked section properties can survive an
earthquake scaled by at least a factor of four (i.e.
af4ae).
2. A number of general design and detailing recommendations have been presented in Section 6.3 to ensure
a chimney possesses moderate ductility. Some of the
design issues include the specification of; overstrength, minimum strength, minimum ultimate curvature values and staggered splice requirements.
3. Recommendations have been developed for the elastic
design (ED, R=1) and limited ductile design (LDD,
R=2) of both ordinary (IF=1.0) and special (IF=1.4)
chimney structures to satisfy the serviceability limit
state (SLS) and structural stability limit state (SSLS).
The probability of exceedance over a 50 year life for
ordinary and special chimneys are in the order of 50%
and 25% for the SLS and 2% and 1% for the SSLS.
4. The LDD approach specified in the 2001 CICIND
code is strongly recommended for the design of tall
chimney structures. This method allows a 50%
reduction in earthquake forces (R=2) to account for
ductility effects, provided some basic design guidelines are followed. In contrast, the ED approach which
assumes R=1 (1998 CICIND) and R=1.3 (1998 ACI
307), results in a chimney that may fail in a brittle
manner.
5. The limited ductile design approach recommended in
the 2001 CICIND code,which encourages the formation of multiple plastic hinges in the windshield away
from openings to dissipate the seismic energy, results
in a chimney with a significantly improved performance at the SSLS, and significantly reduced design
forces for both the windshield and foundations.

22

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

6. A detailed study of six case study chimneys indicated

that special chimneys designed using the 2001 CICIND code LDD method (R=2) resulted in cost savings
for the windshield of 20% compared with the 1998
CICIND design method. Further cost savings would
be associated with the design of the foundations.
7. The seismic design approach specified in the 1998
ACI 307 and 1998 CICIND encourages elastic behaviour with no specific requirements specified for ductility. Consequently, a chimney designed following
the guidelines will be significantly more expensive
and may behave in a brittle manner under an extreme
earthquake event.
8. The seismic design recommendations of EC8-3,
which encourages ductile behaviour through the formation of one plastic hinge using capacity design
principles, are considered non conservative due to
higher mode effects magnifying the chimney
response. Significantly larger moment amplification
factors are needed in the upper section of the chimney
with resulting design and cost implications. The concentration of the damage and inelastic behaviour at
one location has further design, construction and
cost implications.
9. The seismic design approach recommended in the
1997 UBC code allows a reduction in the elastic
forces for ductility without specifying any special
design and detailing requirements. Consequently a
ductile response of the chimney under extreme earthquake excitiation cannot be guaranteed. Further, the
R factor recommended in the UBC being both site
and natural period dependent does not appear to have
a rational basis.
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements and appreciation are extended to
the CICIND organisation, University of Melbourne and
Ove Arup and Partners and the very helpful comments
from the reviewers. CICIND and the University provided
financial assistance and infrastructure support for the
testing program whilst Arups provided valuable chimney
design experience for the author whilst working in their
London office.
Appendix 1. Details of Earthquake Accelerograms
See Table 4.
Appendix 2. Justification of Structural Response
Factors
The selection of the seismic load factors recommended
in the 2001 CICIND code [2] are justified in this section

using the ATC-3-06 provisions [35] and also checked

using the NEHRP provisions [36] (further information
is available in [37]). The ATC provisions have the significant advantage that acceleration levels can be predicted approximately using the Weibull distribution for
different return periods ranging from 50 to 10,000 years
[24]. Such a relationship does not exist for the NEHRP
provisions, however an indirect check can be undertaken
using the range of acceleration ratios that exist between
the 2475 and 475 year hazard curves.
(a) ATC-3-06 hazard
The return periods associated with the serviceability
limit state (SLS) and structural stability limit state
(SSLS) are evaluated in this section assuming a seismic
hazard consistent with the ATC-3-06 provisions. The
SLS is associated with the seismic demand equalling the
ultimate strength of the chimney and is equivalent to the
elastic acceleration, ae. The SSLS is associated with
inelastic failure of the chimney at an acceleration level
of af. The ratio of the failure acceleration to the elastic acceleration has been assumed equal to a minimum
value of b=af/ae=41.4=5.6 for chimneys designed for
limited ductility (R=2). The factor 4 is based on the analytical studies of Section 5, whilst the factor 1.4 represents the likely flexural overstrength. Similarly the
acceleration ratio for chimneys designed elastically with
no consideration given to ductility (R=1) has been estimated to be in the order of b=af/ae=1.4 based on the
available overstrength.
The elastic acceleration value (ae) associated with
the SLS can be calculated from the various importance
factors (IF) and structural response factors (R) assuming
a design basis earthquake associated with a return period
of 475 years (a475):
ae (IF / R)a475

(A1)

or
ae / a475 IF / R

(A2)

Similarly the failure acceleration af associated with

the SSLS can be calculated:
af b(IF / R)a475

(A3)

or
af / a475 b(IF / R)

(A4)

The effective return periods associated with the SLS

(ae) and SSLS (af ) can be estimated from the ATC hazard curves as listed in Table 5 for each of the different
chimney classes, types of detailing and levels of seismicity. In addition the acceleration ratios ae/a475 and
af/a475 have been listed. It should be emphasised that the
prediction of return periods for a given level of seis-

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

23

Table 4
Details and characteristics associated with the six earthquake accelerograms AF
Parameter

Units

Earthquake
Date
Magnitude
Re
Soil type
PGA
PGV
PGD
PGV/PGA
PGA/PGV
PGD/PGA
(PGDPGA)/PGV2
td
td (accel 595%)
td (velocity 595%)

Mo
km
g
m/s
m
mm/s/g
g/m/s
m/g
s
s
s

Synthetic

Soft (S=2)
0.10
0.32
0.39
3200
0.31
3.90
0.38
26
16
16

Kobe
17/01/95
7.2
20
Stiff
0.84
0.91
0.24
1083
0.92
0.29
0.24
30
8
9

El-Centro
18/05/40
6.6
8
Stiff
0.32
0.36
0.19
1125
0.89
0.59
0.47
30
24
24

Pacoima Dam
9/02/71
6.6
8
Stiff
1.19
1.15
0.40
966
1.03
0.34
0.36
40
7
6

Honshu
16/05/68
7.9
290
Stiff
0.22
0.33
0.12
1500
0.67
0.55
0.24
90
33
34

Synthetic

Soft (S=2)
0.10
0.26
0.21
2600
0.38
2.10
0.31
12
7
6

Re=Epicentral distance; td=duration; PGA=peak ground acceleration; PGV=peak ground velocity; PGD=peak ground displacement.
Table 5
Return periods associated with SLS and SSLS
Class

Detailing

Elastic

Seismic

Elastic

Seismic

Seismicity

Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High

IF

1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4

1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2

af/ae

1.4
1.4
5.6
5.6
1.4
1.4
5.6
5.6

micity is an inexact science and the values should be

taken as indicative only.
The results indicate that chimneys designed for limited ductility with R=2 are not likely to fail since the
return period associated with the SSLS are typically well
in excess of 2475 years. Importantly, the SLS appears
satisfactory with return periods in the order of 50100
years for ordinary chimneys and 100200 years for special chimneys. Special chimneys designed elastically
with R=1 and IF=1.4 possess a reasonable return period
at the SSLS and appear totally over designed at the SLS.
(b) NEHRP hazard
An alternative approach for the selection of a structural response factor, R, is on the basis that an ordinary
chimney (IF=1.0) should survive the 2475 year SSLS
event without collapse (2% exceedance in 50 years). The
elastic acceleration value ae has been previously
defined as the acceleration level at which the seismic
demand equals the ultimate strength of the chimney. The

ae/a475

1.2
1.2
0.5
0.5
1.4
1.4
0.7
0.7

af/a475

1.7
1.7
2.8
2.8
2.0
2.0
3.9
3.9

Return period
DB

SLS

SSLS

475
475
475
475
475
475
475
475

475
475
120
40
1075
2600
220
120

1075
2600
8300
10000+
2700
10000+
10000+
10000+

elastic acceleration can be expressed in the form

ae=a475 (IF/R).
This can be re-arranged in terms of the structural
response factor, R:
R IFa475 / ae IF(a475 / a2475)(a2475 / ae)

(A5)

IFb / c
where b=a2475/ae and for af=a2475, b=af/ae and
c=a2475/a475.
The factor b is dependent on the chimney design
whilst the factor c is dependent on the seismicity of the
site. The ratio of the failure to elastic acceleration for a
chimney designed for limited ductility and allowing for
overstrength is at least b=af/ae=41.4=5.6.
The ATC-3-06 provisions suggest that c varies from
1.5 to 2.0 for high and low seismic regions respectively.
The seismic hazard maps published in the NEHRP provisions suggest similar values for the high seismicity
regions and c=23 for the low seimicity regions. However, in some moderate seismic regions, near large

24

J.L. Wilson / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1124

Table 6
R values asociated with a range of c values (c=a2475/a475) and IF factors
R

c=2

c=3

c=5

IF=1.0
IF=1.4

2.8
3.9

1.9
2.7

1.1
1.5

intraplate faults which rupture infrequently (e.g. New

Madrid fault) the c value may increase to c=46. The
structural response factors R which results from the combination of b=5.6 and a range of c factors are summarised in Table 6.
A structural response factor of R=2 appears reasonable
for the seismic hazard specified in the ATC-3-06 and
NEHRP provisions. An exception is the moderate seismicity region where according to the NEHRP provisions
c may approach a value in the range 46 and result in
an R factor less than 2. For such regions the design basis
earthquake (a475) could be artificially increased for
design purposes to a475=a2475/c where c=23. Alternatively, the design basis earthquake could be associated
with the 2475 year event a2475 and the structural response
factor increased from R=2 to R=3.

References
[1] Wilson JL. The aseismic design of tall reinforced concrete chimneys. ACI Structural Journal (in press).
[2] CICIND. Model code for concrete chimneys, Part A: the shell.
International Committee on Industrial Chimneys, Switzerland,
1998/2000.
[3] ACI 307. Standard practice for the design and construction of
cast in place reinforced concrete chimneys. American Concrete
Institute, MI, 1995/98.
[4] Eurocode 8-1. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of
structures, Part 1: general rules. DD Env 1998-1-1, Brussels,
1996.
[5] International Conference of Building Officials. Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 23: Earthquake Design. ICBO, CA, 1994/97.
[6] Wilson JL. Earthquake design and analysis of tall reinforced concrete chimneys. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia, 2000.
[7] Wilson JL. Earthquake design and analysis of tall reinforced concrete chimneys. CICIND Report 1999;15(2):1626.
[8] Rumman WS. Earthquake forces in reinforced concrete chimneys. ASCE Journal of Structural Division 1967;93((ST6)):55
70.
[9] Rumman WS. Basic structural design of concrete chimneys.
ASCE Journal of Power Division 1970;96((P03)):30918.
[10] Maugh LC, Rumman WS. Dynamic design of reinforced concrete
chimneys. ACI Journal Paper 1967;64-47:55867.
[11] Rumman WS. Modal characteristics of linearly tapered reinforced
concrete chimneys. Journal of ACI 1985;82:5316.
[12] Omote Y. Vibration test of existing chimney. Report of the Technical Research Institute, Ohbayashi-Gumi Ltd., Japan, 1975. p.
135.
[13] Adachi N, Koshida H. Vibration characteristics of a 200 m high
reinforced concrete chimney. Kajima Corporation, Kajima Institute of Construction Technology 1982;30:10714.

[14] Kapsarov H, Milicevic M. Comparison between experimental and

theoretical investigations of high RC chimneys for mathematical
formulation. In: 8th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, (8ECEE), Lisbon, 1986. Vol. 4, Section 7.3, p.7380.
[15] Da Rin EM, Stefani S. Dynamic testing and vibration monitoring
of tall chimneys. In: CICIND International Conference, UK, 1988.
[16] Melbourne WH, Cheung JCK, Goddard CR. Response to wind
action of 265 metre Mount Isa Stack. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering 1983;109(11):256177.
[17] Omote Y, Takeda T. Experimental and analytical study on
reinforced concrete chimneys. Tokyo: Japan Earthquake Engineering Promotion Society, 1975.
[18] Omote Y, Takeda T. Non linear earthquake response study on the
reinforced concrete chimneyPart 2Analytical study of some
realistic chimneys. Transactions of the Architectural Institute of
Japan, 1975. p. 2537.
[19] Shiau LC, Yang HTY. Elastic-plastic response of chimney. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering 1980;106((ST4)):791807.
[20] Goyal A, Maiti MK. Inelastic seismic resistance of reinforced
concrete structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1997;26:50173.
[21] Maiti MK, Goyal A. Non linear seismic response of reinforced
concrete stack like structures. Bulletin Indian Society of Earthquake Technology 1996;33(2):195214.
[22] Booth ED, Allsop AC, Carroll C. Ductility of reinforced concrete
chimneys under seismic loading. Proceedings 10ECEE
1995;3:19992004.
[23] Carroll C. The ductility supply/demand of reinforced concrete
chimneys. MSc thesis, Imperial College, Department of Civil
Engineering, London, 1994.
[24] Allsop A, Booth E, Blanchard J. Design of concrete chimneys in
regions of high seismicity. CICIND Report 1993;9(2):3841.
[25] Carr AJ. Ruaumokoinelastic dynamic analysis computer program. University of Canterbury, New Zealand, Department of
Civil Engineering, Computer Program Library, 1998.
[26] Wilson JL. Code recommendations for the aseismic design of tall
reinforced concrete chimneys. CICIND Report 2000;16(2):812.
[27] Carr AJ. Dynamic analysis of structures. Bulletin NZNSEE
1994;27(2):12946.
[28] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete
and masonry buildings. New York: Wiley, 1992.
[29] ATC 40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings.
Applied Technology Council, CA, 1996.
[30] Aschleim M, Maffei J, Black E. Nonlinear static procedures and
earthquake displacement demands. In: Proceedings 6th USA
National Conference Earthquake Engineering (6USNCEE), 1998.
[31] Seneviratria GDPK, Krawinkler H. Evaluation of inelastic MDOF
effects for seismic design. Report No.120, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Centre, Civil Engineering Department, Stanford University, CA.
[32] Ghosh SK. Required strength of earthquake resistant reinforced
concrete shear walls. In: Krawinkler H, editor. Non linear seismic
analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings. Oxford:
Elsevier Science; 1992. p. 17180.
[33] Eberhard MO, Sozen MA. Behaviour based method to determine
design shear in earthquake resistant walls. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering 1993;119(2):61940.
[34] Wilson JL. The earthquake response of reinforced concrete chimneys. CICIND Report 1998;14(2):349.
[35] ATC 3.06. Tentative provisions for the development of seismic
regulations for buildings. Applied Technology Council, USA,
1978.
[36] BSSC. NEHRP Recommended provisions for seismic regulations
for new buildings, 1997 edition. FEMA 302, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington DC, 1998.
[37] Wilson JL. Aseismic design recommendations for chimneys: a
probabilistic assessment. CICIND Report 2001;17(2):1323.