Analysis of Wind and Earthquake on Self Supported Steel Chimney

Abstract

Chimney or Stacks is a long and flexible structure made of steel, concrete and stone construction. These are used to dispose of toxic water or gases at high altitudes that do not pollute the air and access to the floor is within the approved limits approved by the general pollution control officer. Various loads such as autonomy, fluid load, air load, earthquake load and heat exchanger operator. Most industrial steel chimneys are long structures with a circular section crossing; such small and medium-sized structures often have an air vibration in which the geometry of the supporting steel chimney plays an important role in its structural behavior under the corresponding strong loading. The basic dimensions of the industrial steel support chimney, such as height, width at the outlet etc. To validate the failure mode configuration code (IS-6533: 1989 Part 2) set several parameters in the geometry that range from top to base width width and height to the base width of the steel frame. The purpose of the current study is to obtain a comparative study of a supporting steel chimney for wind load and earthquake effect and also to justify code methods regarding the size of an industrial steel chimney foundation. In the present study of the static and flexible analysis of a steel chimney 45, 60, 75 and 90 m long, of the landscape II, III, IV, V with a base resting on hard and soft soil layers was performed. The wind speed operating in the chimney varied from 33 to 55 m / sec. The system analysis was developed using MATLAB 2013. The results obtained from the MATLAB system were compared with the data already available in the literature (Punmia et al. 2012]. , the system was developed using the MATLAB 2013 air analysis system with a strong air strength of 45m high-strength steel slabs of unstable cement with varying heights of the thickness of the scale and the maximum width to the base width. The results were compared with data already published in the literature (Rakshith et al, 2015). The results were consistent. It was evident from the results that the geometric limits specified by the code (IS-6533: 1989 Part 2) were not traded for dynamic analysis.