Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
It is well known that at certain intensities of wind flow velocity acting on a structure, the
response of the latter in the transverse direction of flow is induced by alternating vortices. The
most important parameters that contribute to the cross wind response are: the intensity of
turbulence, the duration of the gusts and the magnitude of the wind speed in the floe direction.
Nevertheless, there is not exist an unified criteria to evaluate the cross-wind response and
several methodologies has been proposed. In this paper, two of those methodologies for the
calculation of total displacements in the transverse direction of the wind flow, are analyzed and
described. Also, some procedures proposed in different international design codes to evaluate
the cross-wind response of cylindrical structures, are applied to the case of a chimney for
comparison. Finally, it is concluded that the method that best estimates the cross response due to
vortices, with respect to the results reported in the literature and obtained experimentally in full
scale prototypes, is the one proposed in the Danish code.
INTRODUCTION
A high speed flow passing around a body with arbitrary shape (Figure 1) produces a wake vortex
on the back with alternating movement from one side to another, a phenomenon known as wake
vortices Bnard - von Karman who are credited with this observation.
In many structures not only the dynamic response in the along-wind direction is
important, but also the response due to vortex shedding in the leeward side that produce cross-
wind displacements and which must be considered in the total response. The longitudinal
vibrations of the structure are caused by the natural turbulence of the wind, but the cross-wind
ones are caused, besides the natural turbulence of the wind, by vortex shedding. This
phenomenon can be presented in structures like lattice towers with a high solidity ratio
( 0 .5) , in rectangular prismatic structures like buildings (Figure 2) and slim bridges, but
mainly it appears in structures with cylindrical cross-sectional section like cylindrical towers,
poles, masts and chimneys.
A great number of failures in structures, mainly with circular cross-section [1], have been
reported in literature. In steel chimneys, the cross-wind effects produce important displacements
perpendicular to the wind direction and these at the time, increase the cross-wind base
overturning moment in the foundations, and therefore in the joint stresses, as they are the
anchors, nuts and the base plate. Because the vortex shedding produced fluctuating forces, this is
translated in a series of cycles of load that can generate a fatigue failure in the material. Some
examples are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 1: Von Karman Vortex, behind the Guadalupe Island (www.daac.gstc.nasa.gov)
Figure 4: Experimental evidence of the vortex shedding on a leeward side of circular section
When Reynolds number increases the flow shifts from laminar to transitory turbulence.
Achenbach [2] identified four intervals depending on the flow behavior of the boundary layer,
these are: subcritical, critical, supercritical and transcritical. The Reynolds number that defines
each scheme has not been determined accurately because it depends on various factors like the
roughness of the cylinder, the intensity of streamlines, and aspect ratio of the cylinder (Figure 5).
In Table 1, this intervals and their corresponding approximated Reynolds number are related.
For circular cross-section, Strouhal number varies with flow velocity and therefore with
Reynolds number. In Table 2, StrouhalReynolds number empirical relationships are shown [3],
where y ln Re 1.6 x 10 3 .
In general, Strouhal number ranges from 0.18 to 0.20. In most practical cases that arise in
structures, it may be considered a constant Strouhal number equal to 0.2.
In the following paragraphs the spectral and resonance vortex shedding methodologies
are described.
SPECTRAL METHOD
The spectral method gives adequate results for relatively rigid structures such as concrete
silos, concrete chimneys with large diameter and low height [4]. In this case, the procedure of the
vortex shedding response is based on the spectral modal analysis.
The generalized force on the structure, due to the vortex shedding, is:
Figure 5: Vortex variation on leeward side in function of flow velocity
h
Q(t ) Fv ( z , t ) ( z ) dz (3)
0
Where the inertia force per unit length in cross-wind direction, Fv ( z , t ) , is given by:
Fv ( z , t ) q ( z ) b( z ) C L ( z , t ) (4)
(z ) Modal shape, and
h Height of the structure
In the Equation 4, q (z ) is the velocity wind pressure, b (z ) is the external diameter and
C L ( z, t ) is a dimensionless factor. If it is considered that e (Hz) is the natural modal frequency,
then the structure deflexion can be written as
y ( z , t ) ( z ) a (t ) (5)
Where a (t ) is the modal displacement, which is considered as stochastic process with a
power spectral density given by
h 2 q b C L ref
2
2 2
S a ( ) H ( ) J ( ) (6)
e Bref
2 2
Where H ( ) is the structure transfer function, is the modal frequency and J ( ) is
the aerodynamic admittance given by:
2 1 h h
J ( ) 2 g ( z1 , ) g ( z 2 , ) ( z1 , z 2 ) dz1 dz 2 (7)
h 0 0
Where ( z1 , z 2 ) is the correlation function and g ( z , ) is defined by:
q ( z ) b( z ) C L ( z ) ( z ) 1 ( z ) 2
Bref
g ( z , ) exp s
(8)
q b C L ref
B( z ) s ( z ) 2
B ( z )
If the correlation length is small, the joint aerodynamic admittance can be approximated
by:
bref 2
0 g ( z, )
2 h
J ( ) 2 dz (9)
h2
Where b ref is the correlation length.
The standard deviation of the displacement for a white noise excitation can be
approximated by:
y ( z) ( z) 0
S a ( ) d (10)
Or
1 h
4
( z ) C L ,ref g ( z, e )2 dz bref q ref bref
h 0
y ( z) (11)
2 mref ref Bref (2 e ) 2 v h
2
Where e (Hz) is the fundamental frequency of the structure and v is a dimensionless
factor given by:
1 h m( z ) 2 ( z )
h 0 mref ref
v 2
dz (12)
a 2 K a (13)
me
Where is the air density, b ref is the reference width, K a is an aerodynamic parameter,
which is positive if the aerodynamic damping is negative and me is the equivalent mass per unit
length given by:
h
me
0
m( z ) 2 ( z ) dz
(14)
h
0
2 ( z ) dz
The inertia force per unit length, Fv (z ) , acting perpendicular to the wind direction, can
be obtained by:
Fv ( z ) m( z ) (2 e ) 2 k p y ( z ) (15)
Where k p is the peak factor and y (z ) is the standard deviation of the displacement
given in Equation 11.
Fe max .
0
q( z ) b( z ) c F ( z ) ( z ) dz
(18)
h
0
2 ( z ) dz
Where max . is the maximum amplitude of the modal shape. The Equation 17 can be
written as:
h q ( z ) b( z )
Ymax . 0 q ref. bref.
c F ( z ) ( z ) dz
1 1
max . (19)
bref. S c S t2
4 2 ( z ) dz
Where S c and St are the Scruton and Strouhal numbers, respectively. Scruton number is
given by:
2 s me
Sc (20)
bref.
2
Where clat. is the standard deviation of the load. It has seen that the maximum load can
be equal to the standard deviation multiplied by the peak factor. Ruscheweyh [5] considers the
peak factor by means integration of the modal shape over the effective correlation length, L e ,
defined by:
( z ) dz k ( z ) dz
Le
p
L
(23)
Thus, the effective correlation length incorporates the influences of the correlation of
load and peak factor. Substituting Equations 22 and 23 in Equation 19, is obtained
Ymax . 1 1
K K w clat . (24)
bref. S c S t2
Where K and K w are constants. For example, in the Euro Code [6], these constants are
defined, respectively, as:
h
K max .
( z) dz
0
(25)
h
4 ( z ) dz2
0
( z) dz
Le
Kw h (26)
0
( z ) dz
For modes that do not have constant sign, it is assumed that load acts in the same
direction as the modal deflection, so the definition of K and K w should be modifying as
proposed in Reference [4].
j 1 l j
j ( z ) dz
K mod m (37)
4 dz 2
j
j 1 l j
Where m is the number of antinodes of the vibrating structure in the considered mode
shape, j (z ) , and l j is the length of the structure between two nodes. If one considers only the
first vibration mode for a cantilever structure, j 1 , m 1 and l j h . If it assumed
that 1 ( z ) z h , then the previous equation gives K mod 5 12 0.13 .
2
The lateral force coefficient is shown in Table 4. K lat 3 2 .4 V crit . V1, L1 K lat , 0
Table 3: Constants for determination of the effect of vortex shedding
Constant R e 10 5 R e 5 x 10 5 R e 10 6
Cc 0.02 0.005 0.01
K a , max . 2 0.5 1
aL 0.4 0.4 0.4
The constants C c and K a , max . are assumed to vary linearly with the logarithm of the
5 5 5 6
Reynolds number for 10 R e 5 x 10 and for 5 x 10 R e 10 .
Table 4: Lateral force coefficient, K lat , versus critical wind velocity ratio, V crit . V1, L1
K lat Critical wind velocity ratio
K lat K lat , 0 Vcrit . V1, L1 0.83
K lat 3 2 .4 V crit . V1, L1 K lat , 0 0.83 Vcrit . V1, L1 1.25
K lat 0 1.25 Vcrit . V1, L1
In Table 4, V1, L1 is the mean wind velocity in the centre of the effective correlation
length, L1 , which is obtained from Table 5 as a function of vibration amplitude for first vibration
mode, Y (s1 ) . The basic value K lat , 0 of the lateral force coefficient is given Figure 6 for circular
cylinders.
The effective correlation length factor, for first vibration mode of a cantilever structure, is
given by:
L /b L /b 1 L /b
2
K w 3 1 1 1 1 Where 1 h b (38)
1 1 3 1
Table 5: Effective correlation length L1 as a function of vibration amplitude Y (s1 )
Y (s1 ) b L1 b
0.1 6
0.1 to 0.6 4.8 1.2 Y (s1 ) b
0.6 12
Figure 6: Basic value K lat ,0 of the lateral force coefficient versus Reynolds number Re (Vcrit . ) for
circular cylinders
K a K a , max h v ( I v ) (40)
Where:
hv ( I v ) 1 3 I v ( z ) if 0 I v ( z ) 0.25 (41a)
hv ( I v ) 0.25 if I v ( z ) 0.25 (41b)
The turbulence intensity I v (z ) is determined at the height where the movement of the
structure is at a maximum.
When the standard deviation of the deflection is less than approximately 2% of the cross-
wind dimension, the peak factor can be calculated with:
0.577
k p 2 ln(600 e ) (42)
2 ln(600 e )
For standard deviation exceeding approximately 20% of the diameter, the peak factor can
be taken as 2 .
Spectral Method
Because Re 2.434 x 10 6 10 6 Cc 0.01, K a K a ,max 1 and a L 0.4
(0.4) 2 4.44
c1 1 0.0517 Equation 34
2 4 (1)
(1.25 kg/m 3 ) (3 m) 2 (0.4) 2 (0.01) 2 (3 m)
c2 4
8.57 x 10 -6 Equation 35
1,000 kg/m 1 (0.18) (60 m)
2
y
0.0517 (0.0517) 2 8.57 x 10 -6 0.1035 Equation 33
b
y
0.3217 y 0.965 m
b
Sc 4.44
k p 2 1 1.2 arctan 0.75 2 1 1.2 arctan 0.75 1.854
4 K a 4 (1)
Ymax (1.854 ) (0.965 m ) 1.789 m Equation 32
CONCLUSIONS
In this work the methodology proposed by different wind design codes has been analyzed to
calculate the maximum response that can take place in a cylindrical structure in cross wind
direction, due to the vortex shedding. Considering the turbulence intensity and, for hence, the
roughness place in where the structure will be built; the results are more congruent between the
data obtained with experimental tests and the data resultant from the environment vibration tests
made on steel chimneys. In conclusion, the methodology proposed by the Danish code for vortex
shedding effects is the more accurate.
REFERENCES
[1] Tranvik P. and Goran A., Dynamic behaviour under wind loading of a 90 m steel chimney, Alstom
Power Sweden AB, Vaxjo, Report S-0141, 2002.
[2] Achenbach E., Influence of surface roughness on the cross-flow around a circular cylinder, J. Fluid
Mechanics, 1971, 46, p. 321-335.
[3] Norberg C., Fluctuating lift on a circular cylinder: Review and new measurements, J. Fluids Struct.,
2003, 17, 57.
[4] Dyrbye G. and Hansen S., Wind load on structures, John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0-471-9565-1, 1997.
[5] Ruscheweyh H. and Sedlacek G., Crosswind vibrations of steel stacks-critical comparison between
some recently proposed codes, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1988, 30,
p. 173-183
[6] BS EN 1991-1-4-4:2005, Euro Code 1: Actions on structures, Part 1-4: General actions-Wind
actions, British Standard, 2005.
[7] NRCC 48192, National Research Council Canada, Users Gudie-NBC 2005 Structural Commentaries
(Part 4 of Division B), ISBN 0-660-19506-2, 1993.
[8] AS/NZS 1170.2:2002, Australian/Neo Zealand Standard, Structural design actions, Part 2: Wind
Actions, 2005.
[9] DS410 E:2004, Code of Practice for Loads for the Design of Structures, Danish Standard
Association, 2004.
[11] Ciesielski R., Gaczek M. and Kawecki J., Observation results of cross-wind response of towers and
steel chimneys, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamic, 1992, 41-44, p. 2205-2211.
[12] Vickery B. J. and Basu R. I., Simplified approaches to the evaluation of the across-wind response of
chimneys, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1983, Vol. 14, p. 153-166.