Rectangular Silos; Interaction of Structure and Stored Bulk Solid

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

by Richard J. Goodey

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Brunel University September 2002

Rectangular Silos; Interaction of Structure and Stored Bulk Solid
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

by Richard J. Goodey

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Brunel University
September 2002

BRUNEL UNIVERSITY PUBLICATION
Please complete in block capitals

OF THESES

NAME:..'

.ýC.

k1R tZý

"C0 17r C NG t Nýý tý nl
Si l-OS
7c uLi<

DEPARTMENT: TITLE OF"THESIS:
Sriý2ýjC1 Vý2ý

r\ EcuAt) CAL
i2ý= C IýqNG V1-AiZ
f4A. 3f S cy1z

te

F_ /kcm O Iý
SýL1ý1ý

OF
,

PLEASE COMPLETE EITHER PART A OR PART B
A. I agree that-the abstract of my thesis may be published by the University without further reference to me. B. I request that'my thesis be held under confidential cover in the Library for a period of years for the following reasons:

In accordance with the University's Handbook of Procedures, the Head of Library Services may in in be to thesis or part copied whole allow my Authority Such further to me. reference without for to study copies single' made shall apply only be subject to normal shall purposes and conditions of acknowledgement.

Once the period of confidentiality has expired, I agree that the conditions set down in Part A will apply without further reference to me.

(Seenotes overl Signature:

Signature:
Date:

Date:

3I6

3' Pleasepass this form to your supervisor who to should sign below indicating his/her agreement the retention of the thesis under confidential cover. Signature of Supervisor. Additional comments:

Signature (Senior Assistant Registrar)
If you have completed Part A please return this form direct to the Library with evidence of your award. Part B. when complete, should be returned to the Senior Assistant Registrar (Records & Systems) in the Registry.

For- the attention of candidates who have completed Part A Attention is drawn to the fact that the copyright of a thesis restswith its author. A. copy of a candidate's thesis is supplied to the Library on condition that anyone who its its it is to that with authorand that no rests copyright recognise understood consults from be derived it information from thesis the and no may publishedwithout quotation the prior written consent of the author or the University, as appropriate.

i) ii)

in the first instanceto the Head of Library Requestsfor such permission should be addressed Services.

Abstract
The main aim of this research is directed towards the study of thin-walled rectangular planform silos with a view to maximising their structural efficiency. In thin platesof the type making up the wall, membrane action may increase the load carrying capability and current design guides make no account of this. Designing rectangular silos with this in mind can lead to significant structural savings. The core of the research involves using the finite element method to study the by bulk the weight of a granular exerted solid on the walls of the patternsof pressure in law The granular solid must use stored an elastic-plastic material silo structure. order to account for large deformations that can occur in a thin-walled structure. The need for this type of constitutive law led to the investigation of bulk solid properties have been bulk that that to parameters previously used categorise solids shows and describe be to all aspectsof their behaviour. The finite element sufficient may not laws that can be found in a number of constitutive uses material model created from The be determined granular required material parameters can a packages. This tests. approach aims to enable engineersto routinely use simple of number designing silos. when similar models The results obtained from the finite element model exhibited some anomaliesthat had been observed in previous work. These were mainly apparentin the form of localised pressurepeaks near the base of the model. These effects were investigated lead to them were proposed. that mechanisms and possible The results from the finite element model were compared to previous experimental The theories. model was then used to conduct parametricsurveys existing work and distribution the of pressureacrossthe and and rectangular planform silos on square wall comparedto previous predictive models. Finally, a scalethin-walled metal silo was constructedand pressuremeasurements on filling with pea gravel made. These are compared to predictions made by the finite
element model.

i

Many thanks go to Keith Withers. This researchwould not have beenpossible without the assistance of the technicians in the department. and Brian Dear. Bob Webb. I would also like to thank him for giving me the opportunity of studying for a Ph. I must thank ProfessorMichael Rotter of Edinburgh University for his drawn from this work. ii . Dr Chang-JiangWang and Dave Simpson to mention but a few. My thanks to Dr Richard Torrens. of years Finally. There has also been a good numberof reprobateswho I have crossedpaths with and have made the whole researchexperience more enjoyable. John and staff Langdon. thanks to my girlfriend Lana who has supportedme for severalyears and has only spent a small amount of that time telling me to get a job. Thanks must go to my parentsfor their support and hard cash over the large number in full-time have I to managed stay education.D. First and foremost. Dr Anthony Morgan. I would like to thank my supervisor.Acknowledgements There are of course a number of people to whom I would like to express my gratitude. Thanks also to my second supervisors. in the first place.ProfessorLes Henshalland ProfessorLuiz Wrobel.Mr Chris Brown for providing me with guidance (and funding) throughout the duration of my research. Secondly. I must also mention Professor Jurgen with assistance papers Nielsen for his guidance at the onset of this project.

6 Dischargepressures 3.3.2.7.5 Evaluation of pressurecoefficient -k 3.7 Other loading considerations 3.1 Theory of Janssen 3.1.3 Theory for squat silos 3.3.2 Theory of Reimbert and Reimbert 3.1.3Thermalloading 26 26 111 .3 Calculationsfor wall pressures 3.1.2 Stressstatein the stored solid 3.4 Flow type 6 6 6 6 2.1.1 Silo loads 3.2 Height to width ratio 2. Stressesand loads in the ensiled material and the silo structure 3.1 Definitions 1 2 4 5 2.3 Construction materials 2.2 Silos studied 3.3.1Planform 2. Background to the problem 2.4 Assumptionsof theories 3.7.7.1 Thesis summary 2.1 Interaction between silo and contents 3. Introduction 1.1 Wind loading 8 10 10 11 12 12 13 16 20 21 22 25 25 26 loading 3.2Seismic 3.Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements Notation List of figures List of tables i ii ix xi xvi 1.

2 Large deflectiontheory 3.10.10.1 Generalequationsfor rectangularplates 3.2.5 Summary 5.2 Generalnumerical techniques 3.9 Silo response 3.4 Discrete elementmethod 4.3 Comparisonof small and large deflection theory for plate problems 3.1.10.1.2. Numerical methods for the prediction of silo wall pressures 4.1.8 Application of theoriesto rectangular planform silos 3.1.2 Discharge pressures 39 41 4.1 Sourcesof non-linearity 5.3.1 Small deflectiontheory 3.4 Previous application of the finite element method to silo problems 34 34 36 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 4.4.2 Available numerical techniques 4.1 Introduction 4.1 Analysis type 5.1.3 Boundary elementmethod 4.2 Obtaining a solution in non-linear finite element analysis 42 44 44 46 46 iv .10.10.3 Choice of numerical techniquefor use in the current project 4.1 Finite differencemethod 4. The finite element method applied to silo problems 5.1 Filling pressures 4.2 Finite elementmethod 4.1 Load supportingactionsin silos structures 3.13 Summary 4.11 Structural considerations 27 27 27 28 30 31 31 31 32 32 3.2.2.12 Rectangularbin design 3.10 Membrane actionsin rectangular plates 3.9.4.

5.2 Axisymmetric model .2.1 Propertiesof granular bulk solids 5.1Linearelasticlaw 6.3 Material models 6.2 Determining granular bulk solids properties for finite elementanalysis 5.3.4.3 Elastic-plastic laws 5.1 Elastic laws 5.2 Porouselastic law 5.1Poissonsratio as the controlling factor in the linear elastic model 6. Calibration and validation of material constitutive laws 6.4.3.4 Elastic material models 69 70 6.3.1.4.3.4.1.5 Elastic/plasticmodels 70 72 76 83 V .4 Drucker-Pragerlaw 5.2.4.geometry and boundary conditions 47 47 47 48 49 51 55 56 56 56 57 58 58 60 62 64 64 66 67 67 67 6.4.1 Introduction 6.1.2 Non-elastic laws 5.3 Material constitutive laws for use in the current work 5.3 Non-linearity in silo problems 5.4.1Large deformations 5.4 Constitutive laws available in ABAQUS 5.3.1Plastic potential and flow rule 5.3.5 Summary 6.3.2Mohr-Coulomb criteria in three-dimensional stressspace 5.2Contact analysis 5.2 Porouselastic model 6.3 Mohr-Coulomb law 5.2 Constitutive modelsto describe material behaviour 5.4.1 Linear elastic law 5.4.1.

6 Best fit of finite elementresultsto experimentaldata 6.7 One-dimensionalconsolidation testson the two granularbulk solids 6.1.6.2 Horizontal and vertical stressin the storedsolid 7.5.5 Hopper basecondition in the hopper 7.1 Application of plasticity criteria to the axisymmetric model 6.2 Comparisonwith Janssen pressure 6.5.5 Comparisonto Lahlouh et al's (1995) experimental data 6.3 Comparison with experimentalsanddata 6. The effect of the boundary condition at the baseof the axisymmetric bin 7.6.2 Frictional base condition 83 85 86 89 91 94 95 97 97 102 104 104 105 107 7.8 Conclusions and choice of valuesfor PE-DPmodel for Leighton Buzzard sandand pea gravel 7.6 Three-dimensionalmodels 6.1 Frictionless basecondition 7.3 Predictive law for wall normal pressures 117 122 125 127 127 127 130 133 vi .1 Introduction 8.1 Flat-bottomed axisymmetric bin 7.6 Conclusion 8.6.6.1 Further validation distribution 6.6.6.4 Summary of flat-bottomed model 109 111 114 116 7.6.3 Baseand wall not connected 7.1.1 Average and local valuesof k 8.3 Strain in the stored material 7.4 Modelling of pea gravel 6. Further investigation of the geometry of Lahlouh et at (1995) 8.1.2.2 Patternsof vertical stressin the storedmaterial 8.1 Pressures 7.

6.1.5 Summary 8.2. Parametric study of a square planform silo 134 138 142 144 145 145 146 147 147 149 150 152 9.1Silo geometry andconstruction 10.2Instrumentation 178 180 181 Deflections 10.3.3 Planform 9.4 Wall thickness 9.6.2Deformations 9.6.1 Effect of large deformations in the wall 9.4Average and local values of k in the solid 8.3.1Adhesive tests 10.3.4 Comparisonwith finite elementresults 8.2.2 Distribution of pressureacrossthe wall 8.1 Introduction 9.3Wall normal pressures 182 183 183 vi' .5.6.2 Comparisonto experimentalresults in gravel 8.8.1 of thewall 10.3 Patternsof vertical stressin the solid 8.3.2 Stiffness of ensiled material 158 159 159 164 9.6 Variation of height of silo 166 172 173 174 9.5 Relative stiffness of silo wall and ensiled material 9.7 Summary 9.1 Relative stiffnessbetweenwall and stored solid 152 153 155 in thewall 9.6. Experiment 176 178 10.2Strain in the wall 10.2 Type of storedmaterial 9.2.7 Summary 10.2.6 Finite elementpredictionsfor an idealised wheat distribution 8.1 Squareplanform silo with 20mm thick wall 9.2.5 Comparisonwith predictive law 8.1 Comparisonto experimentalresults in sand 8.1 Comparisonto Janssen 8.

5 Variation of wall thickness 196 197 203 11. Rectangular planform silos 11.2 Further work References Publications 205 206 207 209 210 223 Appendix A.4 Variation of planform ratio 11.3.2 Comparisonwith predictive law 10.4 Experimental results 10.Best fit of finite element predictions to the experimental 236 sand data Appendix F.3 Rigid walled silo 11.4.1 Pressures acrossthe centreline 10.4.Derivation of the Janssen formulae Appendix Appendix B.10.2Free field cells 10.1 Limitations to this study 11.5 Summary 11.2.3.1Wall pressurecells 10.6Summary 12.2.Example contour plot output from ABAQUS Appendix E.Investigation of wall pressure cells 238 240 viii .4. Conclusions and further work 12.Convergence test on the three-dimensional C.3 Strain in the silo wall 10.3 Finite elementpredictions of the experimentalrig 10.2 Current guidance available 183 184 185 187 188 188 190 191 192 192 193 11.Sample finite element input file model 224 226 228 Appendix D.1 Summary of main conclusions 12.

P. p q R r in hopper Normal pressure Tractive force in hopper in solid Vertical pressure Tractive force down bin wall Averagepressurestress Frictional force/Deviator stress Hydraulic radius of bin Radiusof bin/Radiusof plate ix . 4. Il J2 Jeý k L Pa Pelt Ph P. Crosssectionalareaof silo/Characteristicabscissa Length of long wall Length of short wall Circumference of bin dischargecoefficient Overpressure cohesion Diameterof bin/Plateflexural rigidity Voids ratio Plasticpotential/Shear modulus Height of silo Height of surcharge cone First invariant of stresstensor Secondinvariant of stresstensor Elastic volume change Ratio of horizontal to vertical stressin solid Length of silo wall Initial stress Elastic tensilelimit Horizontal wall pressure Mean wall pressure Pn Pt P.Notation (A dot abovea symbol indicatesa rate (eg. = directional strain rate)) A a b C Co c D e G H h..

t U v w Y y a a' ß y E ES E. cj x 1% µ v a a. ° Thickness of bin wall Perimeter of rectangularbin Volume of solid Deflection of plate Yield function Depth from surfaceof fill Redistribution parameter Hopper wall angle Drucker-Prager internal angle of friction Bulk density/Shearstrain Young's modulus Young's modulus of stored solid Young's modulus of silo wall Directional strain Gradient of reloading lines Logarithmic bulk modulus/Gradient of initial loading line Coefficient of friction Poisson's ratio Stress Initial yield stress Axial stress Radial stress as ar a.1 T T. j Directional stress Shearstress Directional shearstress Internal angle of friction yr Dilation angle X .

4 .Comparisonof Janssen and Reimbert theoriesin a similarly sized circular bin Figure 3. 1978) granular material Figure 5.5 .Comparisonof large and small deflection theory for a circular plate Figure 3.The finite elementmeshof an axisymmetricsilo 63 64 65 66 68 69 xi .10 . 1990) Figure 5.Volumetric response of a granular solid in compression Figure 5.Janssen Figure 3.Variation of a) shearforce and b) volumetric strain with shear strain in a 16 18 20 24 28 30 33 44 45 45 48 52 52 53 54 55 59 60 61 (AtkinsonandBransby.3 -A non-linearsystemwith a non-uniquesolution Figure 5.13 .The coincidenceof the Drucker-Pragerand Mohr-Coulomb criteria (Chen.10 .9 . 1994) Figure 6.Planform shapes of silos Figure 3.3 .Loads exertedon the silo structurefrom the ensiledmaterial Figure 3.9 .11.6 .Figure usedto determinethe flow type in a silo (from ENV 1991-4 (1995)) Figure 2.Distortion of a block of granular material by the application of a force Figure 5.1 .Yield loci of granularmaterial determinedfrom the Jenike shear cell Figure 5.2 .5 -A Jenikeshearcell Figure 5.16 .2 -Notation usedfor silo geometry Figure 33 -Equilibrium considerationfor Janssen theory 4 7 8 10 13 14 for wall normalpressures distribution Figure 3.15 .Comparisonof a hydrostaticdistribution and a Janssen silo Figure 2.The Mohr-Coulombcriterion in principal stressspace Figure 5.Coulombmodel for friction Figure 5.Triaxial test resultsfor wheatmaterial (Ooi.7 .List of figures distribution in a deep Figure 2.The Drucker-Prager criterion in principal stressspace Figure 5.12 .2 .Restraintat the baseof the finite elementmodel of the bin Figure 6.8 -A rectangularsilo with externally applied stiffening Figure 3.7 .2 -A simple non-linearelastic load-displacement response Figure 5.Structuralfeaturesof cylindrical silos Figure 5.1 .14 .1 -A simple linear elastic load-displacement response Figure 5.1 .The completeMohr-Coulomb criterion Figure 5.Normal pressures on the long and short wall of a rectangularbin according to Reimbertand Reimbert(1976) distributionsof wall normal pressureusing different values of k Figure 3.8 .Typical resultsfrom an oedometertest Figure 5.Apparatusfor triaxial test Figure 5.4-A typicalJanssen Figure 3.6 .

7 .Effect of doubling the mesh density on wall normal pressures Figure 7.Pressures acrossthe wall as predicted by linear elastic law Figure 6.Finite element predictions of wall normal pressureacrossthe wall compared to experimental data of Lahlouh et al (1995) Figure 6.One-dimensional consolidation tests on wheat Figure 7.Pressures near the baseusing different constitutive laws Figure 7.Schematicshowing the layout of the experimentalrig used by Lahlouh et al (1995) Figure 6.Comparison betweenJanssen and FEA results for pea gravel Figure 6.Wall normal pressureas calculatedfrom the porous elastic constitutive law Figure 6.24 .The effect of using different initial conditions in the porous elastic model 72 74 75 77 78 79 81 82 laws Figure6.Average wall normal pressures as predicted by different constitutive laws Figure 6.The effect of changing the initial stressin the porous elastic model Figure 6.11.Integrated experimental (Lahlouh et at.The effect of adopting different values of µ Figure 7.14 .Simplified figure to show compressionof solid in a typical silo Figure 6.Finite element model of Lahlouh et als (1995) geometry Figure 6.The effect of changing the elastic stiffness in the axisymmetric bin Figure 6.3 .2 .23 .17 .One-dimensionalconsolidation tests on Leighton Buzzard sand Figure 6.16 .3 .5 .18 .The distribution of horizontal and vertical stressat two levels in the axisymmetric silo model 92 93 95 96 97 99 99 100 101 102 105 106 106 108 109 110 111 X11 .10 .22 .6 .Theeffecton wall normalpressures of usingelasto-plastic constitutive in an axisymmetric model Figure 6. 1995) and finite elementwall normal 85 87 88 89 90 distributionfor sand to Janssen compared pressures Figure 6.21 .Schematicshowing the one-dimensionalconsolidation test cell Figure 6.8 .20 .19 .12 .Wall normal pressurepredictions in the baseand wall disconnectedmodel Figure 7.Wall normal pressureas calculatedfrom linear elastic constitutive law Figure 6.Integrated experimental and finite elementwall normal pressures compared to Janssendistribution for gravel Figure 6.25 .The effect of Poisson's ratio on the depth over which end effects are present Figure 7.9 .One-dimensional consolidation tests on pea gravel Figure 6.1 .15 .6 .Figure 6.4 .5 .The effect of a frictional base in an axisymmetric bin Figure 7.7 .Finite element results as determinedby the recalibratedporous elasticmodel Figure 6.Finite element predictions of wall normal pressureacrossthe wall Figure 6.Comparisonsbetween finite elementand Janssen predictions for a rangeof materials Figure 6.4 .One-dimensional consolidation of sand Figure 6.13 .

9 .Comparisonof a determinedfrom finite elementmethod and experiment in sand Figure 8.9 .The variation of the parametera with depth in gravel in the geometry of Lahlouh et al (1995) 137 138 139 140 140 frombestfit valueof a compared distribution Figure 8.ComparisonbetweenFEA results and predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) 143 144 X111 .Predicted distribution resulting from best fit value of a comparedto original experimentaldatafor sand(Lahlouh et a!.13 .12 .Patternsof vertical stressat 1m and 2m below the surfaceof the solid Figure 83 .14 .1 .Wall pressuredistributionsfrom gravel experimentsand predictive law distribution Figure 8.19 -Normal pressurein hoppersof varying angles Figure 7.Effective coefficient of friction in hoppersof different angle Figure 8.Proposedarchingmechanism of Rotter et al (2002) in rectangularsilo Figure 8.The wall normal pressure abovethe transition with a 45° concentrichopper Figure 7.Comparisonof a determinedfrom finite elementmethod and experiment in 142 141 gravel Figure 8.11 .Deformation of the hopperwall Figure 7.10 .7 .2 .Effect of small angledhopper on the wall normal pressureprediction Figure 7.Vertical straincontourplot in axisymmetricmodel Figure 7.Figure 7.Predicted to original resulting experimentaldatafor gravel (Lahlouh et al.17.Wall pressure distributions from sand experiments and predictive law 121 122 123 123 124 125 128 129 131 132 135 in sand Figure 8. 1995) Figure 8.10 .Comparisonof analysiswith LE and PEDP constitutive laws 112 113 114 114 115 116 118 119 120 Figure 7.4 .Effect on hopperwall pressurepredictionsof varying wall stiffness Figure 7.The effect on wall pressures abovethe transition of a rigid hopper wall Figure 7.21 .Local and averagevaluesof k in sand Figure 8.14 .The variation of the parameter a with depth in sand in the geometry of 136 Lahlouh et al (1995) Figure 8.11 .Mechanismto accountfor observedend-effect Figure 7.15 .Local and averagevaluesof k in gravel Figure 8.15 .8 .Best fit meanpressures Figure 8.Best fit valuesof pmagainstexperimentaldata and Janssen Figure 8.13 .8 .18 . 1995) Figure 8.Wall normal pressures Figure 7.5 .16 .Effective coefficient of wall friction in the sandmodel from the model with spring-supported base Figure 7.Wall normal pressure nearthe baseof the model with a hopper Figure 7.12.The effectof altering theangleof thehopper the on pressures above transition Figure 7.6 .22 .20 .Radial strain contourplot in axisymmetricmodel Figure 7.

Comparisonof EJL IFt3 with a in sand.23 .8 .5m squareplanform bin with varying wall thickness(gravel fill) Figure 9.19 .Comparisonof pressuresacrossthe wall from finite elementmodel and predictive law in wheat Figure 9.Average wall pressures planformsilo of differentheight (wheatfill) xiv .13 .1 .5m squareplanform bin with varying wall thickness(wheat fill) Figure 9.18 .12 .Variation of a with depth in different materials Figure 9.19 .20 -a determinedfrom finite elementmethod in wheat Figure 8.21 .11 .21 .Coefficient a for wheat in the squareplanform bins Figure 9.Variation of a at 6m depth with wall thickness Figure 9.Wall normal pressuresfor wheat in squareplanform silos Figure 9.20 .Wall normal pressuredistribution acrossthe wall in wheat Figure 8.3 .Comparisonof Janssenand FEA prediction in 3m squareplanform bin with 100mmthick wall Figure 9.Averagenormal wall pressuresdown the depth of a 1.Patternof vertical stress in wheat lm from the surfaceof the solid Figure 8.Figure 8.Variation of a with depth in bins of varying wall thickness(wheat) Figure 9.Variation of a with depth in bins of varying wall thickness (sand) Figure 9.Averagenormal wall pressuresdown the depth of a 1.Wall normal pressuresfor sand in squareplanform silos Figure 9.Distribution of pressure above the transition Figure 9.24.Local and averagevalues of k in wheat Figure 8.17 .10 .22 . gravel and wheat Figure 9.Variation of a with depth in bins of varying wall thickness(gravel) Figure 9.Coefficient a for gravel in the squareplanform bins Figure 9.2 .Relationshipbetweenwall length and a Figure 9.5 .Comparisonof results obtained in al Omdeepbin and 5m deep bin (sand 145 146 147 148 149 150 154 155 158 159 160 160 161 162 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 168 169 169 170 171 172 173 fill) 175 176 in a 2m square Figure 9.Effect of large deformations on the value of a Figure 9.Comparisonto Janssendistribution in wheat Figure 8.Relationshipbetween wall length and elastic stiffness of stored material Figure 9.Wall normal pressuresfor gravel in squareplanform silos Figure 9.Wall normal pressuresin deep squareplanform bin Figure 9.7 .Normal deformations(w/t) down the centreline of the bin wall Figure 9.Averagenormal wall pressuresdown the depth of a 1.9 .4 .16 .14 .16 .15 .5m squareplanform bin with varying wall thickness(sand fill) Figure 9.17 .Coefficient a for sand in the squareplanform bins Figure 9.6 .18 .

Free field cell of the type designed by Askegaard(1978) Figure 10.2 .7 .9 .Wall normal pressurein a 1.Wall normal pressurepredictionsin a rectangularplanform silo in a 2: 1 planfomi ratio bin comparedto Figure 11.Wall normal pressurein a 1.8 .1:1 planform ratio silo (sandfill) Figure 11.5 .Ratio of pressures on long side to short side (after Reimbert) Figure 113 .Figure 10.Deformation of the wall at the top of the silo Figure 11.11.Overall view of the experimentalsilo structure Figure 10.10.4 .2 .S:1 planform ratio silo (sandfill) Figure 11.Wall normal pressurein a 2: 1 planform ratio silo (sandfill) Figure 11.5 .3:1 planform ratio silo (wheat fill) Figure 11.Finite elementand Janssen predictionsof the meanpressurein the experimentalrig 179 179 180 182 184 185 186 Figure 10.1 .15.6 .13 .10 .The chute and conveyor for emptyingthe experimentalsilo rig Figure 10.Redistribution of wall normal stressin a rectangularbin of planform ratio 1.9 .6 .Internal view of the filler box showingdischargeholes Figure 103 .Finite element thewall in the experimental of pressure prediction across rig in the model silo from free field cells and finite elementmodel Figure 10.3:1 planform ratio silo (sandfill) Figure 11.4 .8.Predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) fitted to experimentalresults Figure 10.1 -Notation for rectangularplanform silos Figure 11.Wall normal pressurein a 2: 1 planform ratio silo (wheat fill) Figure 11.11.5: 1 planform ratio silo (wheat fill) 196 197 198 199 199 200 201 201 202 202 Figure 11.5:1 203 204 xv .1:1 planform ratio silo (wheat fill) Figure 11.Wall normal pressurein a 1.Principle of wall pressurecell Figure 10.Wall normal pressurein a 1.Long and short wall pressures 187 188 189 190 192 194 195 from ENV 1991-4 (1995) predictions Figure 11.12 .Wall normal pressurein a 1.Horizontal and vertical strain down the centrelineof the bin wall Figure 11.14 .Wall normal deflectionscalculatedfrom FEA under different loading conditions Figure 10.Pressures Figure 10.Wall normal pressure in a 1.FEA predictions comparedto the predictionsof Reimbert and Reimbert (1976) Figure 11.7.

Resultsfrom consolidation tests on sand and gravel Table 6.Length of walls in rectangular planform silo models 76 80 92 94 101 103 157 164 170 181 189 193 198 xvi .3 .8 .Values of bulk density for Leighton Buzzard sand from Lahlouh et al (1995) Table 6.Resultsfrom sheartests of different adhesives Table 10.1 .2 .Final propertiesusedfor the materials in the finite element model Table 9.6 .Equivalent elastic stiffness with varying wall thickness Table 10.Propertiesof pea gravel measuredby Lahlouh et al (1995) Table 6.2 .Propertiesof various granular bulk solids as given by Rotter (2001) Table 6.Equivalent elastic stiffness of the three materials Table 9.Propertiesof granularbulk solids for use in the linear elastic model 31 32 51 71 73 73 law Table6.5.Calculation of.2 .Stresses theories Table 3. determined from the predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) for Table 11.List of tables in a rectangularplate as calculated from large and small deflection Table 3.Definitions accordingto EN1991-4 (Note: d.2 .3 .1 .Values to calibrate the porouselasticconstitutive used Table6.4..1 .Values of a and p. rectangular silos) --b Table 11.9 .1.2.Somepropertiesof granular bulk solids Table 6.Finite elementsolution to the large and small deflection rectangularplate Table 5.%frominitial andfinal densities (in kPa) in the experimental silo from free field cells in Table 6.1.1 .Equivalent elastic stiffness in the squareplanform bins Table 9. 1995) Table 6.7 .Wall normal pressures sand(Lahlouh et al.

Chapter 1. acting on (Janssen. although they are occasionallyreferredto as bunkers(particularly in to the type typically to ground supported. store coal squat used when referring power stations). Circular planform silos must be to arise actions were any because imperfections they to are constructed sensitive of the shell any accurately One of the alternative silo structural forms is a rectangular planform surface. 1985).Introduction In the modem industrial environment there are many situations where granular bulk solids need to be stored. and resulting pressures are pressures 1 . The structuresusedto hold thesematerials are known as silos. 1987). 1985b). Reimbert The Reimbert. Advantageously however. 1895. Silos are usually constructedfrom steel or reinforced concreteand it is apparent that much research effort should be directed toward the study of these types of structures as over 1000 structural failures occur in silos in North America (Jenkyn Goodwill. loads the to acting on the structure. In this type of structure the main load response but if is bending deforms be the there wall sufficiently may some action carrying dominated by induced. Typical granular bulk solids include corn. 1985a)but this can lead to a weak structure simplifying bending (Rotter. predict suitably - Of most importance to structural designersare the (horizontal and vertical) pressures There the silo are severaltheoriesthat are commonly used to predict wall. rectangular silos are simply from flat little plate which requires preparatory work and could therefore constructed if design be to alternative circular codes cost effective planform silos could provide a better behaviour the to adapted of this type of structure. potentially material ensiled design the process (Rotter. Circular from loads the type the this planform structures support of by mainly membrane actions. largely been has ignored but because it is difficult to assessthe this structure. plastic pellets for a production line or coal to feed furnaces. year and each alone Silos are most commonly found in circular planform due to the structural efficiency (Trahair. be This the membrane action will always membrane action bending action but can significantly increase the ultimate strength of the plate if it is taken into consideration. They are axisymmetric. 1976).

1 Thesis summary The work presented in this thesis consists of twelve chapters of which this introduction is the first. It is also obvious that rectangular structuresdo not have rotational symmetry and therefore the available theories have to be adapted to suit. stiffness and stability. This increasesthe weight of the silo be improved designs by These hence the could cost. Structures in have tend to this way an excess of stiffness. By assessment of and 1. allowing a certain amount and of deformation to occur in the wall of the silo which in turn stiffens the plate by membraneactions.then usually multiplied by some factor of safety in order to account for any excess pressurethat may occur during filling or discharge. and " instrumentation design for use in scalemodel silos. 1983). they use thick plates and a produced large number of external and internal stiffeners. This adaptation is unsatisfactory because it makes further assumptionswhich may havea deleteriouseffect upon the economy of any rectangular silo design. 1991. 1995) the emphasis was on on measured pressures. 2 . thin silo wall on wall pressures. determination flexibility the of effect of wall experimental This project aims to extend the knowledge in the area of rectangular planform steel following in the ways: silos " By using finite element models to predict wall pressuresin flexible walled silos. In previous work (Jarrett. Most of these theories assumethe silo (and its contents) has symmetryof rotation but it has been shown that even in a cylindrical silo this is not the case(Nielsen. " " By determining the effect of a very flexible. By comparing experimental results with predictive theories. Lahlouh et al. Once these are ascertainedit is then a matter of using appropriate methodology to design the silo for strength.

and finite element results. It is shown that the previously introduced predictive law is a good fit to finite element results for a number of geometrically different bins. Chapter 8 introduces a two parameter predictive law conceived by Rotter et al (2002). Chapter 11 presents a parametric study of a rectangular silo and in different from in the this type the that structures of are very actions actions shows a square planform silo. It goeson to describethe choice of the finite element method used for the remainderof the study. that can describe granular materials of the type storedin silos. Chapter 3 describessome of the methods currently usedto assess the loads on. Chapter 4 introduces various numerical methods that can be applied to problems of the type studied in this work. The law is compared to experimental Chapter 9 describes a parametric survey of a square silo. Finally. Chapter 10 describes an experiment performed on a thin-walled square planform silo and makes comparisons with the predictive law and the finite element model. comparisonwith current theory combination and comparison with previous experimental work (Lahlouh et al. Chapter7 is is in 6. This Chapter the of modelling anomalies with of some experienced a study regard to observedend effects near the baseof the bin. This is achievedby a interpretation of of experimental data. Chapter 6 describes the initial investigation and validation of the finite element includes determination laws in This of parameters used constitutive various model.Chapter 2 gives some background into the problem being studied as well as defining some of the terms and conceptsused throughout the remainderof the work. 1995). and responses of silo structures. for further work. Chapter 12 presentsconclusions and suggestions 3 . Chapter5 describes the finite element method with respectto silo problemsoutlining solution techniques and modelling methodsused. distribution This law aims to describe the experimentally observed non-uniform of wall pressure at a given depth in the ensiled material.

Background to the problem The structural designer of silos is concerned with the horizontal and vertical pressures acting on the wall of the silo. 0 2 Janssen distribution Hydrostatic 4 distribWon 10 0 20 40 60 Horizontal 80 100 120 (kPa) 140 160 180 wall pressure Figure 2.Comparison of a hydrostatic distribution and a Janssen distribution in a deep silo 4 .1. Early experiments by Roberts (1882. because these pressures determine the bending design. The response of the silo can be that actions govern and membrane difficult to predict due to the large number of different possible failure modes. Airy (1897) published a second theory to compute wall pressures but this is not in distribution Janssen's. Janssen (1895) confirmed this and published his still widely used theory that accounts for this phenomenon. Soon after. along with the hydrostatic distribution that was previously assumed to be correct. A Janssen for normal pressure typical as such widespread use down the depth of a silo wall is shown in figure 2. The wall pressures in silos were originally assumed to be equivalent to hydrostatic (fluid) pressures.Chapter 2. interaction between the stored solid and the structure and sensitivity to geometric imperfections.1 . 1884) showed that this was is by due the the the to the of stored material carried as some of weight wall case not friction at the interface between the materials.

height to width ratio. This leads to the development of an equilibrium betweenthe weight of the solid and the supporting wall friction. while the angled section at the base is referred to as the hopper. 2.1 Definitions There are several terms used in this thesis that require definition. several of which are specifically for the in However of pressures silos. The word silo describes the entire structure.It is obvious that the pressurepredicted by the Janssentheory is substantially lower than the hydrostatic distribution. These theories consider the wall to be rigid and the pressure to be invariant at any given depth but it has been shown by Jarrett et al (1995) and more by Rotter et al (2002). e. The vertical walled section of this is usually referred to as the bin or box. the The definitions from they and the type of flow they exhibit. supporting boundaries. Silos are further classified according to their planform. planform in the granular solid over the deforming wall leading to lower pressures in the middle higher the pressures near rigid. each of these theories contains assumptions prediction and limitations that may make them unsuitablefor particular types of problems. Theories for silo pressures include the Janssen formula (1895). they can support some of their own weight) and friction exists at the interface of the wall and the material. The reason for this observed phenomenon is that granular materials have shear strength (i. that this is not the case for rectangular emphasised recently This research showed that when the wall is flexible an arch can form silos. the with current consistent are given 5 . are constructed material ENV 1991-4 (1995). The observation of this property has led to the proposal of many theories in the field of soil mechanics. This is in contrast and wall of to Janssen's original postulation that a rectangular planform silo might experience higher pressuresat the mid-side of the wall and lower pressures in the comers. those developed by Reimbert and Reimbert (1976) from empirical data and earth pressure theories such as Coulomb's (1776).

2.1995). some will made to very stiff reference will not be be like in behaviour. Rectangular planform structures may however. The type of flow leads to different pressure regimes within the silo contents and therefore different pressures on the silo wall (Nielsen. A deep bin obviously has a ratio greater than this (ENV 1991-4. 1998) and in be be this although covered project. 2. 2. As this form of silo is the most common. Concrete in larger usually used applications such as the storage of cement are more structures Concrete structures are obviously designed with permanency grain. large concrete designs have been replaced by batches of squat steel silos.4 Flow type Consideration must be given to the type of flow experiencedin a silo. 1998). moved. the majority of research activity is not unreasonablydirected towards their study.1. Circular planform silos are efficient structuresthat carry most of their loads by membrane (hoop) actions. clinker.3 Construction materials Silos are usually constructed from either steel or reinforced concrete. silos most commonly occur in either circular or rectangular planform. Recently. to could considered concrete which structures 2. Other planforms are occasionally used and some were investigatedby Reimbert and Reimbert (1976). Flow types can be generally 6 . The design and testing of concrete structures has been well reported (Eibl.1. need to be used for a number of improved if be this type then the of structurecould efficiency of practical reasonsand it may provide a viable alternative to circular silos. coal and in mind whereas steel structures can be easily constructed.2 Height to width ratio Silos can also be classified as deepor shallow and an approximateguide to this factor has height be half that times the silo a not a shallow exceeding one and a would diameter (or shortest side length).1 Planform Currently.1.1. recycled etc.

In massflow. Mass flow may be deemed necessary in food processes because they operate on a first in/first out principle. experience more likely The type of flow experienced in the silo is an important starting point in the structural design process. In funnel flow. associated with stagnant zones in a low volume production situation.classified as massflow and funnel flow (sometimesknown as core or internal flow). 1 %. ý` 70 60 50 ý c 40 30 FuioeFFkw 90 80 40 30 2D 4-0 I.Figure used to determine the flow type in a silo (from ENV 1991-4 (1995)) The figure shows that mass flow will more likely occur in smooth walled silos with steep hoppers and those with rough walls or shallow hoppers will funnel flow. thus avoiding funnel flow.2 . the material tends to flow down a central flow channel while the outer material remains stationary. This stagnant food material could spoil Conversely. the ensiledmaterial moves down the silo as one during discharge.1995). Whether funnel flow or mass flow occurs in a silo is governedby a numberof factors amongstwhich the material properties and the angle of the hopper walls are most important. A graphical design method for determining which type of flow will occur is employed by most codes and a typical diagram is shown in figure 2. `m 10 1 Lb=Flow ýL 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Angle of 'i tion of 2opperwaUct Angle of iridme ion of hopper wad C[ Figure 2. space may be limited which hopper the steep angle required for mass flow hoppers and therefore other precludes solutions for assisted discharge would have to be considered such as flow agitators.2 (ENV 1991-4. I g a 60 50 ý % Ft f and Floht l %` asp j 9 50 g 40 S 30 li 3: = 2D[ 10 0 wssllowortn w \ aowmay oorýrwldn f ` theses f %% %I Mm Flow . Another disadvantage is that mass flow silos wear heavily on the wall due to the 7 .

is a thin. square and hexagonal.abrasive effect of the granular bulk solid sliding down the wall and this must be factoredinto the design.3(a) the wall pressures of shows a of a typical assessment be It basic form that the can seen silo. ground supported or elevatedon columns. However. Metal in silos appear many different plan-forms: circular. silos are regularly stiffened in some easier 8 . rectangular.Planform shapesof silos This variation of form allows the designer to accommodatemany different types of loading but the interaction between the stored bulk solid and the silo wall makesthe difficult. axisymmetric shell of revolution making the stressin the structurerelatively This the circumference.3 . rectangular planform. Figure diagram 2. around makes the analysis of the structureslightly uniform for simple.2 Silos studied This thesis is concerned with metal. of this type of silo cylindrical structural metal. 2.3. un-stiffened cases. abc Figure 2. thin-walled silos. Somedifferent forms of silo are shown in figure 2. They can be tall or squat.

rectangularplanform silos are not as efficient structures as circular ones (section 3. material. which is known as a trough bunker.3(b) shows the basic layout of a rectangularplan-form structure of the type that is to be consideredin this project. It is noted that the silos studied in this project are different from the type shown in figure 2.10). Theseare usually squat and long (the ratio of long wall to short wall is large and they are often treated as infinitely flow (essentially flow. meaning However. the that of stress such as corners make prediction more stressraisers Figure 2.which may be important in applicationswhere spaceis limited.3(c). Rectangular becausethey do not take advantage of membranestresses structures may also make more use of available ground-space (because they tessellate).way and when considering a rectangularplanform silo their natural shape contains difficult. Rectangularplanform silos can be easily constructed from plate is fabrication less there work required prior to construction on site. Each form of silo has its own advantagesand disadvantages. 9 . 2-D the stressstate and exhibit plane walls) parallel extending is not a function of the co-ordinateperpendicularto the plane of flow).

Stresses and loads in the ensiled material and the silo structure 3. Of most importance for design purposes are the loads imposed on the structureby the weight is filled loads bulk These the the silo consistof of granular solid when and emptied.1 Silo loads Silos are subjected to a number of load cases of various load conditions. in design be thermal the to as wind considered such process may need loading and other environmental loads. in the This thesis is mainly concerned with the determination of the filling pressures loads be to these and the given silo structure and as such most consideration will interaction betweenthe ensiled material and the silo structure. tractive shown and are pressurecomponentsand º --Ph -º I -º PwJ Pv UPfl\ Pt Figure 3. are also number and wall loading. 10 . loads There friction that type of other a of stored material.1 . frictional forces in figure 3.Loads exerted on the silo structure from the ensiled material Wall pressurescan be influenced by a number of factors including the silo geometry.Chapter 3.1.

The assumption that the filling and storage pressures are approximately (although is some types of granular materials may cause the widely accepted equal pressure regimes to alter over a period of time).1995. throughout the granular material this state can differ which can affect the internal in by turn affects the pressures which an ensiled experienced material stresses experiencedon the wall. 1984) and discharge (Nielsen.b) and were originally obtained empirically. Therefore it that the overall stress structure of a silo walls influences the wall pressures. Nielsen and Anderson. This is before any be loadings. 1055. problem stress simplified given evaluation of discharge pressures on the static/filling pressures which are multiplied by some pre-determined factor that accounts for the apparent excess pressure. the the upon onset of stress changes 1973a. 1982. 1983). DIN These flow load multipliers are generally derived by consideration of field Walters. and so consideration is normally only is The further by basing the to two often states. in (Nanninga. 1998).1987).2 Stress state in the stored solid Granular materials at rest in a silo can be said to exist in an elastic state which is limited by the Rankine active and passive pressure coefficients (Gaylord and Gaylord. Thesedefine the point of active failure (causedby expansion of the material) and passive failure (causedby compression of the material). discharge 1956. 1979. This process requires the designer to perform only one set of calculations upon which the final design will be based even though there are three different phases of loading.3. pressures 11 . This behaviour of stored materials is known to affect the pressures exerted on the follows (Nielsen. filling. This factor is usually determined from codes or design guides (ENV 1991-4. This to appear a considerable would consideration of any other external shortcoming given the variability of experimentally observed static pressures (Nielsen. 1984). There are three the that assumes stored material state by designers. that are usually considered static and wall of pressure categories discharge. However. Harden et al.

Little work is currently available.2. In order to improve the study of this phenomenona three-dimensional model would be the most suitable but until recently this would have been impractical due to the constraints of computer systems. Similarly. 2001). This will have a large effect on the state of stressthat exists in the solid at the end of the filling process and this has subsequently been shown to affect the wall (Zhong et al. asymmetricpressures 3. This is especially so when the wall is flexible in a systematicway. silo cylindrical Mahmoud and Abdel-Sayed. Lahlouh et al (1995) and Rotter et al (2002) have presented experimentalresults for squareplanform steel silos showing that the flexibility of the wall and the type of granular material used affects the measuredpressures.The stress state (and hence the wall pressures) is also greatly affected by the eccentricity of the fill and discharge processes. 1986). Gaylordand thesehave beenreviewedextensivelyelsewhere 12 . Most of thesestudieshave used a two-dimensional finite element model. it is possible that the material will be drawn pressures from the silo via an eccentric hopper and this has been shown to produce highly in cylindrical bins (Rotter. 1980. Ibrahim and Dickenson. It is more likely that material will be travelling up a conveyer and will be deposited into the bin towards one side. 1983.1 Interaction between silo and contents The pressureexertedon the silo wall is dependenton the interaction betweenthe wall and the stored bulk solid. 1990. During filling it is unlikely that material will be depositedfrom directly above the bin in the centre. 3. 1983). Others have performed studies of the silomaterial interaction (Emanuel et al. possibly impacting on the opposite wall in the case of a slender silo. as in a rectangular planform silo. although several research groups have shown that the flexibility of the wall of a have can an effect on the wall pressures (Ooi and Rotter. 1981). Jarrett et al (1995).3 Calculations for wall pressures There are a number of theories available for the prediction of the wall pressures and (Arnold et al.

1 Theory of Janssen Pressuresin deep silos of circular planform are usually calculated by the theory of Janssen(1895). Only the most commonly parameterssuch as used theories will be assessedhere.3. This is derived by consideringthe equilibrium of a horizontal slice of material in the silo as shown in figure 3. along with their assumptionsand suitability towards the current problem. 1984). 1983).2 . as there are not any specific formulae for this type of calculation. the cylindrical theories are usually applied to rectangular planform structures. D Figure 3. As it is known that the wall deformationand hencethe wall pressurein a rectangular silo varies at constant depth then a three dimensional analysis is required (Ibrahim and Dickenson.2 showsthe notation used for the geometry of the silo in the forthcoming sections.Notation used for silo geometry 3. Most of these theories are applicable to cylindrical silos because these structurescan be reducedto two dimensionsby the assumptionof axisymmetry. 13 . Figure 3.3. although these are sometimes modified slightly to take account of length the the ratio of of the side walls.Gaylord. However.

Jýyuiuua Iuua cuuDlucI auvu av uau"cu ruvul y Summation and integration of these forces yields the following equation for the in vertical pressure the solid: Pv= yk (1-e-r Y/R) (3. k= horizontal the to vertical stressand the wall ratio of of coefficient µ= is be level. R= A/C = hydraulic radius of the silo. The depth the to the the above section. derivation this can seen of outline The Janssenformula makes a number of assumptions that have an effect on the of the model.1) Wherey= bulk density of the stored material. usefulness " " The vertical stresses arezero at the free surface The coefficient of friction between the material and the wall is constant and friction is mobilisedthroughout " " The averageratio of horizontal to vertical stressis constant The storedmaterial is isotropic and uniform in weight 14 .r 'gurr- -7. of solid which assumed y= in formula be Appendix A. friction.2 .

k.1987).5.1995. and this is discussed further in section 3.2) is givenby theformula: And hence the horizontalwall pressure (3. figure 3. but the resulting solution is still two dimensional and therefore gives no indication about the pressure distribution bin depth. relatesthe horizontal to vertical stressin the solid: Ph k= PV (3. The pressurecoefficient. is It be therefore to at any given commonly non-circular assumed a across uniform. The use of the hydraulic radius of a bin (rather than the circumference or the diameter) allows the designer to account for non-circular cross-sections. A typical Janssen distribution for wall normal pressures (Ph) is shown in 15 . k.3) The usefulness of the Janssen theory is therefore dependant on the method used to assess this coefficient. DIN 1055.formula should be applied but These assumptionslimit the casesto which the Janssen it is still used as the basis for a large number of design codes(ENV 1991-4.4.

and equations (3. For horizontal depth is: the silo pressure at a given cylindrical a 16 .3.5) Another method of prediction of wall pressure is that of Reimbert and Reimbert (1976) which is an empirically derived method resulting from a large number of experiments.5 3.2 Theory of Reimbert and Reimbert (3.4 -A typical Janssen distribution for wall normal pressures It can be seen that at great depth the pressures tend to an asymptotic value.4 respectively.0 2 4 ý0 8 10 gE 12 w 14 V 16 18 20 02468 Wall normal pressure 10 (kPa) 12 14 16 -ý Janssen distribution Figure 3. This be by calculated can reducing the exponential component of value asymptotic horizontal 3. This theory allows for the differences in planform that can occur in k depth below to the to the the surface of change of with respect value also silos and fill. 3. It is based on the calculation of what is termed the "characteristic abscissa".1 the to maximum and vertical pressures equal to making zero equation 3.4) Pn=yR yR pv _ uk .

7) ý. also may noted that this theory takes account of any surcharge equation Janssen do the the surface which equations material's on not (they are modified to is This equivalent surface). in section shown The following graph shows the horizontal pressure distribution down the wall of a by deep the Janssen and the Reimbert and Reimbert as calculated silo cylindrical formulae assuminga horizontal surface(figure 3. _ It may be noted that this value is comparable to the maximum value given by the 3.3. a major deficiency in the Janssen accommodatean theory as the surface boundary condition is clearly incorrect.5). However. This discrepancy has no real effect in a deep silo becausethe surchargeis small relative to the overall depth but in a squat silo the large have different a effect and methods of treating this problem are surchargecan 3. = height of cone of surcharge.6) Where P.17). A conical surcharge must lead to a finite value of vertical stresswhere the solid first makes contact with the wall. The value of k taken in the original formulae was the Rankine active ratio (seebelow. be It 3. (equation Janssen equation And A is the "characteristicabscissa"given by: A=Dk 4uk (3. 17 .4).(P1 12 1J (3.8) 3 D= diameterof silo and h.3. yD is the maximum lateral thrust given by: (3. the wall normal pressureat this point must be zero and therefore the value of k must also be zero.

Comparison of Janssen and Reimbert theories in a similarly 10 sized circular bin The value of k taken here was that of the Rankine active ratio.10) And Al given by: 18 .0 -5 10 E t 15 . equilibrium silo e. The Reimbert and Reimbert method also gives specific formulae for the calculation in bin. This is based on the calculation of the relevant the a rectangular of pressure Pmax and A for the long and the short walls using the same basis as for the cylindrical is (i. (3.b is given by: yb Pmx. n =4p (3.9) Ph =P . The graph clearly shows that both methods tend towards an asymptote at a great depth and the maximum value is identical. If the width of the short wall is denoted as b and the long wall as a then the pressure from: be the calculated wall can short on y +1 A. The choice of this ratio is discussed in further detail in section 3.5. the requirement maintained).5 .Janssen distribution Reimbart and Reimbart 02468 Horizontal wall pressure (kPa) Figure 3.b 1- Where Pma.ý20 .

15) 'cock 3 Figure 3.6 shows the horizontal pressures on the walls of a deep rectangular bin long the of wall to short wall is 2: 1.b2 a (3..14) - And A2 given by: (3. is given by: e 1 7h P. ratio where 19 . a =4p With: 2ba .A' b ýrpk he 3 (3.11) For the long wall the formula is similar: (3.12) Ph=P. a 1- y AZ Where Pm.13) b. (3.

5 are defined as intermediate by the Eurocode (ENV 1991-4. and Reimbert and Reimbert theories do not predict the pressures in these type of bins very well because of the influence of any conical surcharge. for example: fAH<_ 1. 3.3. Where H is the height of the silo and A the cross-sectional area.5 then the silo can be referred to as squat although of a silo H/D values of between 1 and 1.5-. The (3. Janssen. pressure This arises from the granular bulk solid spanning between distance the long walls and hence more load is transferred the shorter across to the long walls.3 Theories for squat silos The above theories are most suited to deep bins but when the height to diameter ratio less becomes than about 1.1995).o 2 3 ö '`t S I6 7 8 9 -+-a- Short waH Long wall 10 02468 Wall normal pressure (kPa) 10 12 14 Figure 3. There is even some debate about this definition with other limiting values being proposed (Fischer.16) Reimbert and Reimbert theory makes an allowance for this by incorporating the 20 .6 . 1966).Normal pressures on the long and short wall of a rectangular Reimbert and Reimbert (1976) bin according to It is clear that this theory predicts that the shorter wall will experience a much lower longer the than one.

the volume of sloping is by its limited incorporation hence the size silo and of the sloping on surcharge backfill tends to over-estimatethe pressureson the wall and a more accurate answer from by is level fill. method leadsto non-zeropressures To better calculate the pressuresin squat silos. there are difficulties with using these. and not extends Neither does it take account of the wall friction and thus tends to underestimatethe fails Coulomb friction The theory to take the also account of and wall pressures. Muller-Breslau. This at the first wall contact.into height of the surcharge the equationbut Janssentheory assumesa level fill cone and must thereforebe modified to account for the surcharge. Muller-Breslau these account of (1906) modified the Coulomb theory to account for wall friction and a sloping backfill (this theory is essentially for earth pressurebehind a retaining wall but the be in backfill to the equated surcharge can a silo). Rankine's theory assumes that the stored material be infinitely therefore should applied to circular or rectangular silos. If Janssentheory is to be used for squat silos then the origin of the first contact is moved to create an equivalent surface. wall fill lead in horizontal to surface which can errors silos of this type. The a assumes Coulomb method has therefore been adaptedby some researchersin order to take factors 1808.4 Assumptions of theories The above describedtheories make a number of assumptions of which some have been mentioned. 3. (Mayniel. There are a great number of implied assumptions that can affect the 21 . However. 1906). designers can use an earth pressure theory such as those of Coulomb (1776) or Rankine (1857). is This designers the satisfactory guidelines with assessment of provide batteries important becoming in as of squat silos are common more place especially of larger concretestructures. be this theory the assuming surface a obtained may It is apparentthat more work needsto be directed towards squat structuresin order to for loads. It of a level fill given the volume of solid encompassed is therefore dependanton the silo geometry and the angle of the surcharge. However. The height of this surfaceis calculated by considering the height by the fill and the surcharge.

a gross over-simplification of on the mechanisms that are occurring in a discharging silo. and in most cases are not depth in given a cylindrical silo (Nielsen. 2001). It is usually assumed that the average local but k differ is throughout the the contents silo constant of of values can ratio 22 . This thesis will discuss the averagevalue of k (the ratio determinedby consideration of the silo contents as a whole) and the local value of k (the ratio determined at a point of inspection). Granular materials exhibit very complicated behaviour which is discussedfurther in section 5.5 Evaluation of the average pressure coefficient -k As mentioned. of 3.important the the theories most and of theseare now set accuracyand usefulness of out. The modelling is discharge outside the scope of this thesis. the evaluation of k affects the predictions of the abovetheoriesfor the in wall pressures a silo. This may not always be the case as relative movement betweenthe wall and solid can affect the value of µ. However. these have been be to very complex and produce wall normal pressures that are above shown the estimations made from over-pressure factors. Munch-Anderson et al (1992) and Ooi et al (1990) haveshown that by the the average pressure on a level in a circular silo is well represented Janssendistribution. 1. The onset of constant at a discharge also has a large effect on the behaviour of the stored material which further emphasises the limitations described in Point 2 above. Wall friction is assumedto be constant down the depth of the bin. homogeneous and isotropic. 3.2. 1983). Granular materials contain voids which make them filling in the silo which they to the are sensitive and compressible method of can affect the stressstateproducing a very anisotropic fill (thong et al. 2. Discharge pressures are simplified by using an over pressure factor dependent flow in This is the the type of exhibited silo. The stored material is incompressible.1.

1965. The active pressure is the minimum value and occurs just before failure of the granular material as the wall moves away. As calculated value and occurs by Rankine these two coefficients are given by equations 3. 1966) but there has beenmuch discussion of what value k should be. has for This been by to the the wall material ratio used scope some designers.18.influence from the assumed due factors to the value of such as wall deformation and wall friction. It is unlikely that the passive pressureratio would be reached in a silo problem. The passive pressure is the maximum just before the granular material compressively fails.sin o k_ 1+sinq' o + sin k =1 1-sinq$ (3. The active pressureratio could be experiencedin a flexible walled silo as there is fail if deforms. 1948. These two extremes can be demonstratedby the considerationof a mass of cohesionlesssoil behind a retaining wall and are: " The active pressureratio that results from the movement of the wall away from the granularmaterial. Active: 1. and " The passivepressure ratio that results from the movement of the wall towards the granularmaterial. Pieper and Wenzel.17 and 3. Walker.18) Where 4 is the internal angleof friction of the granularmaterial. Using the single value of k has been consideredsufficiently accuratefor most researchers(Jaky. Methods that allow for the variation of the average value of k have been developed(Reimbertand Reimbert. Rankine (1857) showsthat there are theoretical boundaries for the value of k known as the active and passive pressureratios.17) Passive: (3. 23 . 1976)but the overall result is often one that does not differ too greatly from using a single value of k.

in deep Janssen distribution the silo when using cylindrical a pressure Figure 3.Janssen distributions of wall normal pressure using different values of k The two limiting cases can clearly be seen and are quite different from the majority have k.4 (no matter what the material is) and Jaky's (1948) ratio for earth pressure at rest: k=1-sinn (3.Values of k for use in silo problems have been suggested including Jenike et al's (1973) suggestion of 0.19) This is used mainly for silos with rough walls and has been adopted (with slight 1991-4 (1995) k by ENV the the which gives value of as: modem modification) k =1.sin ý) (3.1(1. tend to the which similar values of predictions of 24 .7 .20) Figure 3.7 shows the effect of using the different values of k on the normal wall formula.

(3.35for4<30° . seismic loads. Loads are imposedon the silo structure from external factors that include wind loads.23) 30° C° =1. 3. The Eurocode (ENV 1991-4. DIN 1055. This implies that the method is for funnel flow silos and no mention is made of eccentricmass flow hoppers.3. In the case of the concentric hopper the normal wall pressure multiplier is basedupon the characteristicsof the material. Most current codes (ENV 1991-4. 25 . This method would appear simplistic given the number of variables that have been identified that can affect the in symmetry of wall pressures even a cylindricalbin.1995.02(4 .22) (3.1987) pressures handle the prediction of the discharge pressures in a silo by calculation of a flow load multiplier and then applying this to the filling pressures.35+0. Phd ° CoPh (3.30°) for 4 >_ In the case of the eccentric discharge the procedure is more complicated and first involves the calculation of the flow channel eccentricity and geometry. and thermal loads caused by expansion and contraction of either the structure or the stored material.1995) gives guidelines for dischargefrom concentric and eccentrichoppers.21 Co=1.7 Other loading considerations As well as the loads imposed by the ensiled material there are a number of other factors that must be considered in the design process. Knowledge of the flow channel then allows calculation of the wall pressurein the flow zone and also in the static zone.6 Discharge pressures This thesis is concernedwith the prediction of the filling pressures but it is necessary to have some understanding of the methods currently used to predict discharge in design codes.

1999). will structure is large inside to the then the ensiled material enough material stored may compared However. 3. Consideration must also be include location This to the to the can silo with respect other structures.7.2 Seismic loading This type of load is not really applicable to designs intended for use in the UK or is low.7. Many statistical tools are available for the prediction of possible wind speedsin a given geographical area wind loads.3. the seismic activity world where of other areas However. of the roof other silos a multi-cellular if have the the the silo and effect on passage of wind round considerable can also design does not call for a roof at all then the possible effect of the wind acting on the internal surfaces of the bin must be examined. a tall. The shapeof the silo and the material it and these can be usedto assess is constructed from affect this loading. rough square silo will experience a higher wind load than a squat. contraction will experience a a new material assume in leads turn to compaction and stiffening of the stored which passive pressure high in be As the there the the as stresses well wall of structure may material.1 Wind loading Any immovable structureexperiences actions from the wind.7. of given installation is being design if The considered. there are a large is important factor seismic activity an where and some codes give number of regions for load designing (ENV 1998-4. Some researchers have 26 . large the on position. 3. The response of the this type of guidance on structure will be a function of the material it is constructed from. discharge problems associated with this compaction.3 Thermal loading If the overall temperatureof the silo's immediate environment increases then the If the relative magnitude of the expansion of the structure expand. smooth cylindrical bin. Wind loading can be critical for be filling/emptying to the given whether must cycle will so consideration empty silos involve periods where the silo may remain empty for sometime. the type of foundation and the structure's natural periods of vibration.

investigated this effect (Zhang et al. 27 . Some codes recommend ways in which the theory can be adjusted to take account of the different shape (ENV 1991-4.8 Application of theories to rectangular planform silos All of the previously described theories are most applicable to circular planform silos. 1986. the savings can where structural made pressure given lower in be bending is lower the the then the to of wall middle and moment shown hence the required strength is reduced. There is also the strengthening effect of taking into consideration the membrane stiffness of the plate. 1989).9 Silo response 3. Cylindrical how this an effect on silo can silos support most of their and loads using in-plane (membrane) forces although some bending may occur in orderto boundary (Rotter. The Reimbert formulae be for (1976) Reimbert to they appear most would useful as give values and the wall pressure on the long and the short wall. would shown experimentally to be incorrect For a flexible walled silo this has been and the pressure at the mid-side can be considerably lower than the pressure at the comer (Jarrett et al.9. membrane discussesseveral caseswhere the effects of bending stress may be of importance. 1995). 1976). 3. DIN 1055) and some have been adapted to make them more applicable (Reimbert and Reimbert. Janssen's (1895) postulated that the pressure at the mid-side of a rectangular silo paper original higher be than that at the comer. in 1985a). None of the theories however give any sort of information about the variation of the pressure across the wall at any be is because is This if depth.1 Load supporting actions in silo structures This section of the thesis discusseshow the alternative forms of silo carry their loads have design. loadings. 3.1995. the of compatibility most cases maintain for is design Rotter (1985b) theory the used of cylindrical shells. Therefore. This phenomenoncould have a significant effect in areaswhere extreme temperaturecycles are apparent. cyclic where large bending stressescould causea such as under repeated fatigue failure.

1998). the when plate undergoes can stress membrane Therefore. Structures are often designed with externally applied stiffening which divides the more flexible plate material into a number of panels which are treated and analysed separately. as will be shown later. that the action of main supporting actions. structures. induced large be deflections. resulting in in-plane This would have particular benefit for smaller. the middle surface becomes strained. unstiffened rectangular 28 .8 -A rectangular silo with externally applied stiffening However. constructed deflection is large the the thin when at midpoint plates. However. creating a more efficient the carried would of structure. compared to the with thickness of the plate. if a design could be formulated that permitted large deflections then some be by load this membrane stress. Figure 3.10 Membrane actions in rectangular plates When considering plates of the sort that a rectangular planform silo may be is bending from.8 shows a typical rectangular silo with a large amount of external stiffening.Rectangular structures however are usually designed so that the primary load supporting action is that of bending stresses (Brown. in an unstiffened structure using thin plates. 3. This tends to lead to an inefficient structure being designed with an excess of strength. Figure 3.

9 shows deflections in the range 0<(w. r4 64D x =D wm. Thereforea modified theory must be for large deflections. At the point w in load is 65% deflection the to the there theory.. As an example considerationis given to a circular plate that is fully fixed about its edge (Ugural.25) Figure 3.25 (for derivation seeUgural (1981)).24) The bending and membrane(large deflection) solution is given by equation 3. 64 or P1= r4 Wmax (3.24. This is usually achieved by the employed which accounts determining the bending stressas per the original theory and then adding to this the membrane stress.v) rr) (2Lmax 3 (3.tensile stress levels that stiffen the plate by a considerableamount.5 and the corresponding load. Ugural (1981) defines a large deflection in a plate as one where the deflection is greaterthan the thickness of the plate but goes on to show that significant differences between large and small deflection solution methodsoccur when the deflection exceeds half of the thickness. predicted according error a small =t 29 . This stress is called diaphragm.. /t)<1. It can be seen that the small deflection theory is suitable for midpoint deflections up to half the thickness of the plate but large errors occur after that point. direct or membrane stress. 1981). 64DCw pl -r3 1+8 r3 J Et (1. A plate undergoing large deflections has non-linear elastic load-deflection and loadstress relationships which are not accountedfor by small-deflection bending theory (the usual approachto plate bendingproblems). The bending (small deflection) solution of this problem is given by equation3.

5 Figure 3.5 0. is 2 It from loaded of with a uniform made steel with E=210 GPa and and dimensions has lm of squareand thickness 3mm.43.10.3 30 . Some approximate solutions of simple shapes have been determined loading (Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger.75 W.g.Comparison of large and small deflection theory for a circular plate 3.53.5 1 0. 1975) but it is only since the advent of numerical techniques that the general problem has been treated satisfactorily 1989). 2 2w Smalldeflection theory -Small Large deflection theory 1 00OF '10 " ' c °' 1. numerical (Zienkiewicz and Taylor.52 5. Consider a squareplate. non-linear partial differential plates. fully fixed load kPa.25 1. )t 1 1. under uniform 1959. some examples are available from literature (e.50 0 0. Roark and Young. The effect of calculating the stresses in rectangular plates using the two different theories can be easily shown using an example.1 General equations for rectangular plates Von Karman (1910) introduced governing differential equations for large deflections form These the take thin of coupled. of equations and where realistic problems are concerned obtaining a solution is a complex and time-consuming task. Solutions for rectangular plates are therefore normally obtained by experimental or However. techniques.5 -2.25 0.9 . Bares (1979) for small deflections and Levy (1942) for large deflections) and these have beencollated by Roark and Young (1975) for engineeringdesignpurposes. and v=0.

gb4/Et4and ab2/Et2.1 .a= bending stress. This table is given for v=0.Stressesin a rectangular plate as calculated from large and small deflection theories It can be seenthat by accounting for the membranestressof a plate undergoing large deflections.8 23.3.1 shows the maximum stress in the plate and the deflection at the middle from the two theories.1. If membrane 31 . 3.27) b= load area. Interpolation between the values in the table may be necessary to provide values of for deflection a particular problem. stressand 3. width of plate.1.10. point as calculated Mid-point stress (MPa) Small deflection theory Large deflection theory 30.26) 0. lower values for stress and displacementare obtained.10.0138gb4 maxw= Eta (3.8 Mid-point deflection (mm) 4.1 Small deflection theory From Roark and Young (1975) the formulas for the bending stressand deflection at the mid-point of a fully fixed squareplate underuniform load are given as: 0.1.12 Table 3. the small solutions are expressedin given terms of the coefficients w/t. t= thickness.3 Comparison of large and small deflection theory Table 3. Once the value of gb4/Et4 is determined then the table can be used to obtain values for the other coefficients.1386gb2 t2 (3.10.2 Large deflection theory In Roark and Young (1975) analytical results from various sources are tabulated.w= per unit where q= deflection and E= Young's modulus.87 3.316 so results would be slightly different from those deflection Large deflection by theory.

for it lead is to more efficient use of the strength of a plate when can stress accounted designing structures. Designing the structure so that large deflections occur may prove difficult and therefore accounting for membrane stiffness may have other benefits. More realistically, this method may make it possible to evaluate the true factor of safetyin the structure. 3.10.2 General numerical techniques for plate problems As previously mentioned since the advent of computer based numerical techniques bending deflection have become in large The to plate easier assess. above problems be finite can repeated using a example simple element model and the rectangular in 3.2. for table this shown are results Element behaviour Bendingonly Bending and membrane a (MPa) 31.98 24.64 y (mm) 4.94 3.16

Table 3.2 - Finite element solution to the large and small deflection rectangular plate

It is clear that the finite elementmethod agreeswell with both theories but of course it is not limited to the small number of geometries and load casesthat are available from literature,and it can be usedfor many plate sizes or geometries. 3.11 Structural considerations There are a large number of other structural components in a silo other than the main All (or of thesecan have an effect on the structural responseof structure. plate) shell the silo. Figure 3.8 showed a rectangular silo and figure 3.10 shows an elevated features. of commonly with a number used silo structural cylindrical

32

Figure 3.10 - Structural

features of cylindrical

silos

These features include a ring beam which provides a junction between the parallel hopper. The is by the the the overall support of silo columns and silo section of is beam. This beam therefore the to ring ring subjected to a attached also are which bin from loading the the weight of structure and the membrane tension complex The beam hopper. by the ring also acts as a stiffener at this point of the silo. caused Comparable in this sense to the ring beam is the roof which as well as protecting the bin. from the top to the the at of also provides stiffening elements exposure contents Figure 3.8 shows a rectangular silo that features externally applied stiffening. The

in be like that to type this results a structure considered act a stiffener can of use of between flexible the there supported stiffeners and are a number of panels of series (Troitsky, for this type the analysis of of structure methods given 1980). This

leads does design to take an overly stiffened structure not usually which of method its full of advantage construction material load carrying capability. This is obviously wasteful of concerning

but also underlines the lack of knowledge

in figure Although 3.8 not shown another occasionally used structures. rectangular feature of rectangular silos are internal ties across the comers. These are used to

in but be before the the corners silo must carefully considered of prevent spreading flow is little There the the they affect can of material. openly available as use

33

because it is internal ties the of corner commercially use material concerning discusses internal have (1998) but Khelil the that ties some of effects can on sensitive wall pressuresand flow patterns. 3.12 Rectangular bin design As this thesis is concernedonly with design of rectangularsilos a full description of the design process for circular planform silos is unnecessary. There are a large design devoted (DIN that to this topic guides are and number of codes, references 1055,1987; ENV 1991-4,1995; Rotter, 2001). It is worthwhile though to discuss design the specific to rectangular planform silos. structural aspects of some of Troitsky (1980) has produced a design guide specifically for rectangular steel silo structures. Most silos of this type would be expected to contain a ring beam at the junction between the hopper and the wall. The ring beam is subjectedto a variety of loads is discrete It distribute if the the on supported columns. must structure especially At filling beam the the the to the columns. onset supporting of silo ring weight of from inward forces hopper. filling As the be the to weight of subjected will horizontal by is force the this pressureexerted on the walls of the offset continues silo. The columns that support a circular silo usually terminate at the ring beam. In design in bin bin they to the top the often are extended of order to provide rectangular is beam There often another ring at the very top of the silo to prevent more stiffness. free incorporated into be deflections the this the edge at although could excessive design. roof 3.13 Summary by The basis of silo design is knowledge of the internal pressures caused the weight be for is A to that theories the stored. number and of methods material of have been developed. Someare specific to a certain silo determining these pressures form (e.g. Muller-Breslau (1906) for squat silos) but generally most codes use one

34

The Eurocode (ENV 1991-5,1994) attempts to the shape. method no matter what this problem by classifying silos accordingto their shape,height etc. address The correct determinationof the wall pressuresis also hindered by the assumptions made by the theories. Chiefly, the adoption of a constant value of k is a major simplification especially when considering rectangular planform silos which have beenshown experimentallyto exhibit large variations in the value of k throughout the storedbulk solid (Rotter et al, 2002). When consideringrectangularsilo design, bending moments are usually the basis. It has been shownthat by accounting for membraneactions that may arise in the plate deflections for lower and a given load are predicted. Membrane stresses structure, deformation but this deformation does not need to be as a of wall result stressarises too large (comparedto the thickness of the plate) for structural savings to be made. Rectangularplanform steel silo designsare often produced that use a large amount of limits This the plate deformation which in turn limits any external stiffening. large of a amount of this stiffening may result in a and removal actions membrane structurewith the sameload carrying capability but using a reduced amount of raw material.

35

Chapter 4- Numerical methods for the prediction of silo wall pressures
4.1 Introduction Due to the many limitations of the analytical methods for determining silo wall from described in have the that assumptions arise section 3.4, researchers pressures turned to numerical methods. The current work aims to investigatethe interaction betweenthe ensiled material and the silo structure when the wall is flexible and large deflections occur using a numerical model. There are a number of numerical

designer, to the structural some of which may be suitable for methods available Initially, the use of these numerical methods and their problems. silo analysing is before to the current problem assessed applicability results are presented potential for analysis performed using a finite element method. 4.2 Available numerical techniques With the advent of affordable yet powerful computers, numerical techniques have been developed that take advantageof this increasedcomputationalpower. Systems of difficult and time-consuming equations can now routinely be solved in a matter of minutes. There are three main techniques used for structural analysis; the finite difference method, finite element method and boundary element method. These form discretization (dividing into the of on some problem units that rely methods have known geometry and properties) of the problem (this could be a fluid flow domain, structural component etc.) and the resulting mesh (combined with knowledge of the boundary conditions) is used to constructa systemof equationsto describe the problem mathematically. These equations can then either be solved implicitly or explicitly (depending on the type of problem) to produce the required ). There fourth discrete (stresses, the etc. pressures also exists a method, results be for bulk that the used can simulation granular solids problems. method, of element This method models individual particles and the interaction betweenthem, and would

36

problems can complex There are a large number of commercial finite element packages available.describedbelow. discussedhere but is consideredunsuitable for the complex problem that is posed by the three dimensionalsimulation of silo filling. on value at points then solution of the systemof equations can be performed manually or by using a is This method not commonly used in commercial simple computer program.2 Finite element method This technique is currently one of the most commonly used numerical techniques for design.2. it This the a makes possible generally degrees that to thousands models create complex may contain many of of engineer freedom without having to have specialist programming knowledge. such as the temperaturedistribution across a thin plate or the velocity of a duct. As in the finite difference method the problem is divided into a series of smaller elements connected by nodes. fluids.2. magnetic flux. 4. Assuming the the the of grid. which include GUI (Graphical User for Interface). It be different to types of problem. The system is divided into a regularly profile of a fluid at a cross-section function describe to the required variable is derived at each of the a spacedgrid and knowledge function's boundaries.1 Finite difference method This method is most commonly applied to problems that can be described as twodimensional. 4. electrical). can engineering applied many mechanical be in that to the one can package used solve problems result a wide range of with fields (structural. 37 .be ideally for to appear suited problems of the type studied here. much more geometrically not finite be the using modelled element technique. There are however limitations to eachmethod. In the past. These in do finite difference be but to the the they grid points compared method nodes can be have to regularly spaced and thus. because design the equationsto be solved must be determined and structural analysis for each separateproblem which would be extremely time-consuming for a large finite difference is The the most established numerical method method analysis.

The commercial need for this type of software has led to extremely robust code that is ideal for the solution of problems of the current type. 4. Modem software packages almost entirely eliminate the need for knowledge of programming languages etc. used on a number of problems aimed at both for this the silo problems and solution of a comprehensive review of occasions techniqueand the finite element method is given by Rotter et al (1998).3 Boundary element method As the name implies. the form of discretization used in this method involves meshing the boundaries of a structure. This has advantages in that the level of computational power is finite for to the especially compared when element method problem a given reduced (which is very similar). there are comparatively few commercial boundary in is due to the established nature of the available which. element packages finite element method which has been used successfully for a number of years. 1991). modelled to using the behaviour of bulk solids.2. The material is representedby a number of particles and the interaction betweentheseparticles is This should appearto give the most accuraterepresentation of numerically. In at silo problems applied their published work a two dimensional silo was examined and the results obtained Janssen (1895).4 Discrete element method This method would appear to be the most suitable for this project as it is specifically involving It has been granular materials. However there are a number of disadvantages bulk interaction between Because the of each particle granular solid and this method. as they are driven by sophisticatedgraphicalinterfaces. is is modelled. However. making programs application specific and more time-consumingto use. 4. an enormous computing resource required to particles adjacent 38 . Because the this technique predictions of with agreement gave good it has boundaries the advantage of reducing a two the a of problem only meshes dimensional problem to one dimension and likewise a three dimensional problem to two dimensions. This technique is relatively new but has already been least by to one research group (Wu and Schmidt.2.implementation has involved based of numerical methods generally computer coding as required. part..

is 2000. There are two distinct phasesthat have been explored.000 perform even al particles for a small two dimensional problem. these commercial packageshave been shown to be suitable for modelling silo Ooi She. Ragneau and Aribert (1993). The package generally not ABAQUS is chosen for its superior handling of the material and model nonlinearities which are important featuresof a thin-walled rectangularsilo. They include Jofriet et al (1977). 1997).dimensional Rotter (1998) two analysis. in This (1997). 4. number of particles could be in the region of 1013 4. Therefore (Guines this and et al. engineers. This is currently considered to be limit in terms of computation for this method. the approaching practical machine However in a real three dimensional silo of the type considered here the actual (Chen et al. 4.1 Filling pressures Many researchers have used the finite element method to predict the wall pressures upon filling a silo. these are codes available is therefore a commercial and available package utilised. 1998). 1999). 39 . a simple et specified 10. Ooi Chen (2000).4 Previous application of the finite element method to silo problems Since the finite element method is one of the most commonly used computational in is the the there study of mechanics of solids extensive silo researchthat methods has utilised it. static) the numerical techniquesfor the two casescan differ significantly. is. Mahmoud and Abdel-Sayed (1981). Although there are several specialist for prediction of silo wall pressure(Ragneauet al. Ooi et al (1996). Theseare often studied separatelyas and pressures upon pressures. filling (and discharge.4. She the main. aimed towards and et al work and axisymmetric modelling of cylindrical silos as it allows easy comparison with the Janssen method. method adopted problems for the remainder of the work presentedhere. Ooi and Rotter (1990).3 Choice of numerical technique for use in the current project Because of the widespread adoption of the finite element method by design Several large of and of proven robust packages are a number available.

Guines Both have (1994) these the al et and of works characterised et al Ragneau (1994) as an elastic/plastic material. Further discussion of this relationship is 6. Results have been presentedby Ragneau (2000). a model elastic 40 . could produce Mahmoud and Abdel-Sayed (1981) further showed that the finite element method could produce results that agreed reasonably well with experimental measurements. Jofriet et al (1977) showed that a finite element model between Janssen the the good agreement predictions and model. This is becausecircular silos have a high radial stiffness which means that strain developed in the storedmaterial is quite small. used the nonet al material ensiled linear elastic model of Boyce (1980) coupled with both the Drucker-Prager(1952) (1979) Guines (2000) Wilde the criteria.1. and coupled with et al. in given section Analysis in three-dimensions is less common as the two-dimensional representation finite has been Janssen the and an axisymmetric equations element model of for design the accurate of the more commonly occurring considered sufficiently Some has has been three-dimensional and analysis performed silo. plasticity also used a non-linear et al and it (Roscoe 1965) 1979) Cam-Clay (Hujeux.4. This is becausethe wall friction appearsexplicitly in the Janssentheory and the Poisson's ratio is implicit due to its relationship with k (the ratio of lateral to vertical pressure). highly deformations The large the that of material. All of analyses described above have adopted a constitutive law to describe the in involve laws Most the used silo plasticity to take problems of ensiled material.For an axisymmetric silo. The key parameters to matching the Janssen theory to the finite be in friction to this type the of problem are shown wall and the element model Poisson'sratio of the material. assumption account of for is one that was are required axisymmetric analyses models material complicated disproved by Ooi and Rotter (1990) who showed that in analysis of this type an describe the ensiled material and provide results that still could elastic model compared favourably with the Janssenpredictions. Both of these pieces of work used custom written finite element code which is outside of the scopeof this thesis. planform circular been applied to rectangular planform silos.

1968. The conclusions of this study were that the finite element method can The filling be very sensitive to assumptions made when constructing the model.4. but has the main differences arise from the researcher's an effect method modelled choice of material properties. 1973a)explain this switch 41 . 4. that occur in this type of silo but hasnot extendedthe work to give guidelines for the design of thesetypes of structure.has demonstrated This the complex patternsof wall pressure work plasticity model. It was concluded that these choices need to made with be for large the the effect on as predicted pressure can very only a small care extreme in change a parameter's value. Rotter et al (1998) conducted a large international study into the use of the finite discrete for filling defined A element methods pressures. It is known that the interaction betweenthe stored solid and the structurecan have an effect on the wall pressures. A previously (Rotter 1995) finite the silo et al. arise moments (1990) showed that the ratio of the stiffness of the solid to the stiffness of the wall large have a effect on the predictedpressuresand that an overall parameter of could (Esr)/(Ewt)could best representthis behaviour for cylindrical silo shells.2 Discharge pressures Although the current study is concernedwith prediction of the filling pressuresonly it is important to consider the modelling of discharge pressures. Chen et al (2000) explored the effect of ring stiffeners in an axisymmetric silo. and well problem element by a number of research groups and the results obtained vary analysed was significantly. was modelled with element experimental studied in in the vicinity of the wall similar peaks pressure were observed method and stiffening rings. Several researchers(Jenike and Johanson. The latter modelled a horizontal slice through a silo in order to show that the bending in level be Ooi the that at a given can and Rotter wall non-uniform. Axisymmetric analysis of this interaction has been carried out by both Mahmoud and Abdel-Sayed (1981) and Emanuel et al (1983). Walters. There is often a large pressurepeak at the onsetof dischargewhich is referred to as a switch pressure.

1995. phenomena Modelling of discharge is often carried out separately to the modelling of the filling. 1986). Those groups (e.in pressureas a change the stressfield in the solid. As well as this switch pressure. g. This appears to be the accepted trend since research groups (Runesson and Nilsson. it is often the casethat only part of the material is moving (funnel flow) and therefore there is no overall but change rather. 1986) who have specifically modelled the discharge stage have done so in order to study other discharge the such as patterns. However. This is because different techniques must be employed for this type of problem. Some groups (Feise and Daiß. 1987) that have from discharge the resulting wall pressures seem to have confirmed the examined found and a switch pressure of agreement between the finite element results existence (1964) Walker Jenike (1966). DIN 1055.1987). theories and of and 4. resulting in silos with a high factor of safety). been the technique this main. investigations of rectangular planform in determining a This may be due to the difficulty 42 . cylindrical and of the work available only preliminary silos have been carried out. Link and Elwi. 2001) have used a fluid dynamics method to model the flow of the solid whereas others have used a dynamic finite element model (Runesson and Nilsson.the pressuresexerted on the wall by a discharging solid are often locally higher during the discharge process than during filling and most codesconsider the dischargepressureto be a factor of the filling pressure(ENV 1991-4. number structural of silo problems modelled complex in but have. restricted to axisymmetric analysis of using has been Little directed towards three-dimensional modelling work silos. localised changes resulting in asymmetry of the discharge pressures.5 Summary The finite element method has been chosen because of it proven ability to model large A been have problems. It may therefore be argued that modelling of the filling stage is sufficient for design purposes becausethese predictions can then be treated in a similar way to arrive at discharge pressures (which are usually over predicted.

This is investigated in Chapter 5.suitable method for characterisingthe behaviour of the granular bulk solid. 43 .

1 shows the load-deflection of a Figure 5. structural problems The deformation of a beam be described linear long load does load the as elastic as not reach can as a point under large deformations in beam level the the the experiences or stress and strain where a do not exceed the yield point.Chapter 5. Analysis has been carried out by using a mixture of custom code and commercial packages. material simple elastic system. the loads applied and the boundary conditions. 44 . 5. The resulting set of equations can be solved directly. but there are a number of aspects that must be consideredwhen modelling silo problems.1 -A simple linear elastic load-displacement response If this systemis modelled using the finite element method then the responseof the be described load P=f by derived the to can uniquely a system of equations system from knowledge of the stiffness of the structure.The finite element method applied to silo problems The finite element method has been used extensively by researchersto model silo problems. mechanics. method is given by Zienkiewicz and Taylor (1989). The work presented below intends to use a commercial description finite An the techniques the element of general of excellent package. Figure 5.1Analysistype There are two basic types of analysis that the finite element method uses for linear in and non-linear.

Figure 5. Figure 5. Solutions to non-linear problems the which applies procedure may also not be unique making their solution more difficult.3. Figure 5.2 -A simple non-linear elastic load-displacement response This system can no longer be described by a single set of uniquely defined equations but the required solution must be determined implicitly by using an iterative load incrementally.Non-linear analysis. dealswith systems that exhibit a non-linear responseto the applied load.3 -A non-linear systemwith a non-unique solution 45 . as the name implies. This situation is shown in figure 5.2 showsthe non-linearresponseof a system.

Using this iterations it for each time increment to obtain the solution.1 Sourcesof non-linearity There may be several featuresof a problem that can give rise to non-linearity. the time step is not measured in real units and it may be easierto consider the increments as a percentage of load (i. material non-linearity (creep. an iterative process that divides the problem into a solve non-linear number of incrementsoften called time steps.1. This correction value is comparedto a set criterion and if this is satisfied the increment is said to have converged. Nonlinearities can arise from geometric non-linearity (large strains and deflections). plasticity etc) and contact interface conditions between areasof the model. If this type of behaviour is expectedthen engineeringjudgement and other calculations may also be required to determine which is the correct (required) solution. This technique involves taking the tangential stiffness matrix at the starting incrementing (for load. take several method may 46 . This does not imply that the problem is mechanically dynamic. If this value were zero then the and can external the structurewould be in equilibrium but that is rarely the case. 5. A large number of problems contain non-linearity and separate different solution techniques must be adopted for non-linear and linear (small displacement) analyses. 5. the tangential stiffness matrix is reformulated using the new configuration and the process repeated until convergence is obtained.2 Obtaining a solution in non-linear finite element analysis Most commercialfinite elementpackagesuse a Newton-Raphson method in order to is This problems. e.1. is A the and example) solution obtained and the conditions iterative correction (which is calculated as the difference between the applied internal forces) loads be determined.The figure shows that there are two values of displacement for the given load. it ranges from 0 (no load) to 1 (full load)). In order to solve a systemlike this the load must be incremented very slowly so that the true responseof the system is followed. If not.

Since the software reforms the model stiffness matrix and solves the system of equations for each iteration the computational time required for non-linear analysisis for linear than that analysis.1.1 Large deformations Linear elastic small strain analysis assumes that the higher order terms in the elastic equations can be ignored and therefore the solution can be obtained by consideration is It displacements that also assumed and strains equations.1. In loads the the transfer the of model and allow across a of portions 47 . elements.10 in showed that a plate could support more load if large section was given deformations were accounted for and membrane action was enabled. and solution 5. in described techniques section 5.1. by force be to transfer the there should a mechanism exerted the weight of the stored is This by These the to the silo.2 must be adopted.3. contact must also exist the stored material will exhibit non-linear properties(mostly plastic deformations). In the finite is dealt by type this situation of a geometrically non-linear with method element displacements by function The to the strains are now related a non-linear analysis. of explicit set a single of loading.2 Contact analysis In order to model the interaction between the stored material and the silo structure. 5.3. As the current work dealswith silo walls that may exhibit large deflections there is a geometric non-linearity implicit in the problem.3 Non-linearity in silo problems A three-dimensional finite element model of a silo will contain all the sourcesof nonlinearity mentioned above. There finally between the the the and and silo walls contents of silo. interface. in that the the and geometry remains model unchanged under are small However this is rarely the case and the example of a large deformation analysis that 3.1. of achieved using contact walls material are elements that are meshed over the surface of the underlying structural elements (representing the bulk solid and the steel silo structure)at points where contact may freedom discontinuous degrees They together the the couple of of effectively occur. greater required much 5.

4).Coulomb model for friction 5. This work uses a Coulomb model for friction which by (figure to the the µ at slip normal stress a simple coefficient. and non-linear solution can give rise elements or techniquesmust be employed. The contact is not tied to the wall and therefore it is possible for the stored is lose from There the to wall and contact. movement of allowable fully become in for friction to order stored material must move a small amount in investigated (2000) Chen the this movement parametercontrolling et al mobilised. model relationship model must is in in This by finite the the a material. also a small amount material move away implies between This "elastic" that the the contact surfaces.4 . The interaction can be modelled as frictional. method strain required element order and that the displacements of the model may be calculatedfrom the forces applied. shear stress relates 5. smooth large displacements These to tied. 48 .form loads take the these of pressure across or relative sliding problem structural betweenthe contact surfaces.2 Constitutive models to describe material behaviour In order to define material behaviour in finite elementanalysis a constitutive material be A defines between the stress the constitutive used. in ABAQUS the that the standard value package gave and concluded model a silo satisfactoryresults. 19 µ (constantfriction coefficient) i Normal stress Figure 5.

do In to this the main propertiesthat affect order granular solid must the granular materials behaviour must be identified and quantified. 49 . small-strain problem. which are relatively easyto perform. However. The complex behaviour of granular bulk solids has alreadybeenmentioned. it may not be appropriate to treat granular materials in the sameway as they are capableof large plastic strains when unconfined and therefore an appropriateconstitutive law for the be formulated. or. and would give no of the yield stressor modulus behaviour (although this could be incorporated) but is sufficient post-yield information for a simple.2. The fact that they exhibit highly non-linear behaviour makes the determination of their for than. complicated more properties example. thoseof a steelsample. The steel used in the silo structurewill be considered to be a linear elastic material with no yield criteria specified. This is consideredsuitable becausethe steel will not be strainedto yield levels and therefore it is not necessaryto accommodate its post-elastic behaviour. In the current work a constitutive law is required for steel (for the structure)and the granular solid (for the ensiled material). and solids. puts classedas granular hencereferenceswill be made to soil mechanicsas this field has much relevanceto the work presentedhere. 5. design. Considering steel as an example. numerical modelling. in this case.the elastic Poisson's This indication the ratio.1 Properties of granular bulk solids The materials that are stored in structuresof the type being studiedin this report are bulk This into them the samecategoryas soils. material Material properties are required for a number of reasonswhich might include.Material constitutive laws can be simple (such as a linear elastic law defined using law Karlsruhe developedby the two or extremely complex such as parameters) only Kolymbas (1988) for granular solids that uses upwards of thirteen parametersto define the material behaviour. Values for thesevariableswould be determinedfrom tensile tests. calculation this material's elastic behaviour can be simply describedby two variables.

50 . biaxial tester and the triaxial tester. " " Barotropy: The material behaviour dependsin the stresslevel. Even the determination of values for these parameterswould pose difficulties as a bulk solid does not assume a form that would make performing a tensile or compressivetest practical.1. A list of some of the parameters that are used to describe bulk solids properties is shown in table 5. Kolymbas (1988) has identified many characteristicsfor defining the behaviour of bulk solids and of thesethe most important are: " " Plasticity: Dilatancy: Irreversibledeformations. the shear box.The aforementionedvariables alone are not enough to adequately describe the full range of behaviour of a granular bulk solid. alternative These tests include. In order to assess these characteristics geotechnical engineers have developed determine tests to the properties of granular bulk solids. Pyknotropy: The behaviourof the material dependson the bulk density evenif the particle density remainsthe same. " Cohesion: Most materials are cohesionless(have no strength in tension) but somecan carry a small load and are known as cohesive materials. When bulk solids shearthe material changesdensity even if the hydrostaticstressremainsthe same.

2 Determining granular bulk solids properties for finite element analysis As already mentioned there are a large number of tests that can be performedon bulk for determine in in the to table 5. It would values parameters shown solids order be impractical to discuss all of thesetests so attention will be paid only to someof the tests that are most relevant to finite element modelling. the shear strength and the density. y Cohesion. an oedometer (one-dimensional consolidation) test and the triaxial test and the methodology and below. The ratio of volume of voids betweenthe particles to volume of solid particles. The mass of a quantity of bulk solid divided by its total volume. Some of the more commonly performed tests are the shear cell test.c load.Some properties of granular bulk solids 5.Angle of internal friction. y Voids ratio. A in figure is 5. As this work is interestedin filling pressures the measured properties need to be those that give information about the static behaviour of the material such as the compressibility. 51 . The shear stress at yield under zero normal stress. supportany Dilation. e The increasein volume due to shear. 4 The angle between a tangent to the yield locus of the material and the normal stressaxis. Determinedfrom shearbox tests. example results are presented The shearcell test enables the engineer to determine the internal angle of friction.1.2.5 is Jenike to test shearcell shown and often as a cell referred shear (1964).1 . Gives an indication of whether the material can Bulk density. Table 5.

the experiments. For a cohesionless Figure 5.6. S) is drawn Mohr tangent to the the which point on yield circle second determinesthe consolidatingpressures of the material.6 . A Mohr circle tangent to this line is S. pl and p2. The effective angle in is S figure between is friction the x-axis and internal the the angle and shown as of from determined Mohr drawn tangent to the the line through circle origin and at a a material this angleis the sameas 0. A first locus (W. A large number of but (have bulk some can support a are no shear strength) cohesionless solids granular 52 .Yield loci of granular material determined from the Jenike shear cell This diagram can also determine the cohesion of the material.5 -A Jenike shear cell The basic principle of operation is that the top of the cell is loaded with a force W is force then applied to the side of the cell until the specimen shearsat a a shear and This procedure is then repeated with lower values of W in order to determine the yield locus shown in figure 5.W Twisting top Offset ff Mold Ring Base Figure 5. value then drawn through the origin which determinesthe unconfinedyield strength (Q.

The oedometercan be used to give simple information about a granular solid's onedimensional compression response. Henkel! the outlined and procedure and 53 .locus S load.8 The triaxial test then regularly a used. This may be comparable to a tensile or is loaded A test sample of granular material on a material such as steel.7 . In the the the yield would cross case of a cohesional material axis small on the abovefigure at a non-zero value. compressive into a test cell and is then simply compressedvia a platen on the surface. The results of this form of test are usually plotted as the direct stress applied via the platen derived Figure 5. of results plot showsa Figure 5. They for law interpreted be to give an equivalent constitutive elastic stiffness a simple may law that accurately models volumetric to complex constitutive more a calibrate or detailed knowledge is If more required of the stress-strain curve of the response. This test gives basic information about the granular bulk solid that may be used for from in determined other or conjunction with other parameters calculations certain testsfor more complex calculations. against from the typical an oedometertest. is is in figure 5.Typical results from an oedometer test These results give simple ideas about the stress-strainrelationship in a soil.7 height the the or volumetric of sample some parameter. apparatus shown material is fully by Bishop (1957).

and can plotted results expansion in many ways although most common is as a function of deviator stressagainst axial from these controlled are outside the test cell and are therefore easily strain as is deviator difference between The the the axial and the stress given as measured.IF Axial deformation Ram j Flexible membrane ff Soil sample -º Cell pressure. apparatusand (ß') is kept constant (usually by applying fluid pressure)and upon loading in the axial (aa) direction the volumetric strain is measured by observation of the radial The be the the then compression axial of sample. It is then placed in the into bottom The brought the top contact with and radial stress platens. ) in order This test is repeateda number of times with different confining pressures to produce different stress-straincurves and a typical example can be seen in figure 5. radial stress.1) (a.9 (taken from Ooi (1990)) 54 .ar Drainageor pore pressure measurement Figure 5.8 -Apparatus for triaxial test The sample is prepared and sealedin a rubber membrane. q=aa-ar (5.

5. Hence only those that are 55 .rlguroýa- IIaa. Not all of them are applicable to the field of silo research becauseof the differences in loading. This law is a set of relationships that defines the elastic or the plastic behaviour of a material (or both). lal tvJI I UII3 Jul nucal WdIC[IAIýVUIý 177VJ Thesecurves illustrate one of the characteristics of granular bulk solids mentioned abovewhich is barotropy (the material behaviour dependson the stresslevel). proposed mainly by civil engineers in the field of soil mechanics. to the constitutive a numerical can appropriate behaviour of the solid in the finite element software. water flow etc.3 Material constitutive laws for use in the current work Once the relevant properties have been identified and values determined from law formulated be describe testing. Nielsen and Weidner (1998) state that the constitutive law must be chosen with respect to the ability to describe stress-strain paths that are relevant to silo problems. There are a large number of these laws.

3. (Ooi this the case was non-linear and much easier laws are available such as the model proposed by Boyce (1980) specifically for by definition irreversible describe However.3. A yield surface is a surface set in stress space which divides the elastic and plastic regions of the model. In Rotter. implement because to they and make the solution of the problem are simple analyses law linear but 1990). deformations and are thus not suitable for use in silo models where plasticity of the solid may occur.3. implemented law has been This the used commonly field in It the of soils research with useful results. considered reversible and outside. A study of creep is beyond the scope of this project and so model laws incorporating creep specifically will not be reported here. these cannot models granular materials.3 Elastic-Plastic laws An elastic-plastic law can be used to more accuratelydescribethe behaviour of bulk solids. this and 56 .Not be discussed. 5. This type of model also makes use of a yield surface and one of the more is Mohr-Coulomb law. proposes that a extensively by loaded some normal stresscan only support somemaximum shearstress material bigger becomes loading if then the material will start to plastically strain. all of thesemodelsrepresent all of the properties suitablewill be for to taken choose an appropriate constitutive care must model any so above particular application. They divide the metal plasticity such as generally irreversible into and part and use a yield surface to distinguish a reversible strain rate between elastic and plastic deformations. Laws for use with soils are from laws Von derived Mises. Anything inside the is irreversible.2 Non-Elastic laws These can describe irreversible deformations and include metal plasticity and creep laws. 5.1 Elastic laws This type of constitutive law is one of the simpler laws for the description of a been in laws have Elastic used a small number of axisymmetric silo material. yield surface 5.

4 Constitutive laws available in ABAQUS In this project several bulk solids will be modelled in order that the validity of the be laws Janssen data. barotropy but (plasticity. Porous (PE). and is thus numerically easier to handle. be to of metal plasticity extensions may considered As well as the yield surface.This sustainableshear stress dependson the angle of internal friction (4) and the further law is (c) A type this the Drucker-Prager law which the solid.1. 5.3 and 5. These are: abovewere " Linearelastic(will bereferred to asLE). 1995. polar.4. The elastic behaviour can be modelled by any one of the linear or non-linear elastic laws description detailed in 5. suitable laws Several these as accurately as possible.4. The Drucker-Prager failure criterion has the advantage over the MohrCoulomb in that it is describedby simple formulae. 1990). they are still rateetc) above mentioned independent and isotropic (Feiseand Schwedes. elastic 9 57 . Again these constitutive laws be laws. creep and microscopic and discussionof thesecan be found in Feiseand Schwedes(1998). A Mohr-Coulomb the more of section and mentioned be found in Drucker-Prager criteria can sections 5. Rotter et al. yield list of the types of constitutive models that are applicable This is not a comprehensive to geotechnicalproblems but most others are little used and will not be investigated in this work. Both of these laws are capable of describing a number of the properties dilatancy. the elastic behaviour and the flow rule (which determinesthe direction and rate of plastic flow) must also be defined.3. tested theory may against and experimental constitutive Experimentaldata is available from severalsources (Lahlouh et al. 2002) and the materials used in those studies were Leighton Buzzard sand and pea law behaviour be therefore A to the must constitutive chosen model gravel. of cohesion of has been used by some research groups for silo problems (Aribert and Ragneau.4. constitutive of the types materials of implemented in described this study. Other models include rate-type.1998).

Drucker-Prager (PE-DP). The (Young's modulus and linear elastic law is described completely by two parameters Poisson's ratio). 1988) but their availability in other finite elementpackageswould make the design problem more tractable for practising designers. using results obtained materials granular history behaviour the the this to the of stress material.1 Linear elastic law The linear elastic law is based on Hooke's (1678) observationthat up to a certain limit the extension of a bar under tension was proportional to the load applied. It is possible to code different constitutive laws in ABAQUS but the performance of the predefined models was investigated first with a view to using one of them. Of in this method are the upon subsequent principal concern material 58 . Critical state soil mechanics (CSM) aims to mathematicallydescribethe responseof by from is Consideration the triaxial tests.4.4." " Linear elastic with Mohr-Coulomb plasticity (LE-MC). material material Kolymbas. a non-linear containing relating the elastic strain to the materials or in by increasing levels (decrease) is based caused volume pressure and on change critical state soil mechanics as originally proposedby Schofield and Wroth (1968). 5. Linear elastic with Drucker-Pragerplasticity (LE-DP). Porous plasticity with elastic is These laws have been chosenbecausethe ABAQUS finite elementsoftware (as well as other commercially available packages)provides support for them. If one of these laws provides a realistic representationof the granularmaterial then models can be created for design purposes using a wide range of finite element packages. 5. It is laws these that may not provide results that cover all aspectsof granular accepted in behaviour laws (e. as affect will of the given loading.2 Porous elastic law This constitutive law is provided specifically for the modelling of granular materials is It law voids. to when compared silos silo specific g.

The and representsubsequentunloading and reloading of gradient the specimenand these have the same gradient x which is generally assumedto be the samefor eachline. may regimes utilised by other researchers(Chen et al. model has beensuccessfully A typical volumetric responseof a granular solid as it is compressedis shown in figure 5. A VV C D K p (a) Figure 5.10(b).10 .2. 2000). It is the initial compressionthat this project is concernedwith 59 .10(a) and for the purposes of critical state soil mechanics this data is rein figure 5. triaxial tests typically as section are relationships This work is mainly related to soil mechanics and hence the pressure and loading in but be different to this type of constitutive those experienced silos.bulk These between the the the volume stress and of solid. This shown produces a series scale plotted on a semi-logarithmic lines which represents a simplified characterisation of the materials of straight behaviourbut is howeverreadily describedmathematically.2.Volumetric response of a granular Log P (b) solid in compression The line A representsthe initial compression of an unstressed sample and has the lines B. effective relationships from in determined described 5. C D X.

due to the application of a force.11 . Tresca for be the criterion plasticity of metal considered an extension may Figure 5. the material divides itself into two blocks in figure is The 5. supportedon a rigid base.11 shows the distortion of a block of granular material. can then this by a localisedplastic that the material divides into two rigid blocks that are separated ideal defines Coulomb basis is the This the value of shear which of an material zone. as shown stress not related shear which slide past eachother ignored deformation if deformations the the the are and elastic extent of to the rate or is failure That be to say behaviour classified as a rigid-plastic mode.it is in be that it is the the silo and unstressed when placed will material assumed as there will be no unloading or reloading after gravity is applied. is a small elastic deformation of the granular material represented When the force reachessome critical value. failure The to the criteria with occur respect normal stress.3 Mohr-Coulomb law The Mohr-Coulomb criterion is one of the simplest models for granularmaterialsand (1864).11(b).4. \ Force T ß (a) (b) (c) Figure 5.Distortion of a block of granular material by the application of a force If this experiment were conducted it can be shown that for small valuesof force there by figure 5. will stressat which slip can be written as: 60 . 5.11(c).

ti = atan4+c. 1.this implies that no slip can occur. If the Mohr's circle touches the line then condition 2 above is said to exist. There are three states to considerin an ideal Coulomb material.iz - ne complete moor-Louiomo criterion The three statesabove can be shown on the diagram. If the Mohr's circle is below the line then the material is in a stategiven by condition 1 above. 2. From condition 3 it can be deducedthat the line may not intersectthe circle.12 showsthe completeMohr-Coulomb failure criteria. It may be noted that many coarsematerials have a very low or zero value of c. and governed unknown 3. these values cannot occur becauseif values of rc greater than those given by equation5.Z=Qtan9S+c (5. 61 . r> atan$+c.2 imply that the material is not in static equilibrium away from the other. It is also noted that for the special caseof 4= 01 then this reducesto the Trescacriterion. t< atan4+c. and one of the "blocks" would accelerate Figure 5. this implies a slip plane will form but the extent of this slip is by boundary the conditions of the material.2) Where c is the cohesionof the material. rfigure a.

Once the plastic potential surface is defined. In order to determinetheseunknowns the concept of a plastic potential function (G) is introduced which is analogousto ideal fluid flow conditions. Cartesian)and 4 is a scalar constant. One special case is the associated flow rule.The yield function.1 Plastic potential and flow rule The above equations determine the level of stressat which the material will yield but do not describe the direction or rate of yield.5) Where i andi are any combination of the co-ordinate variables (polar.43. (5.Q... (5. material Imno ev_-IY. The relationship between the yield function and the plastic potential is known as the flow rule.3) And thus if the Coulomb function is re-written in terms of co-ordinatesn ands which are normal to and along the slip plane respectively. By definition the yield function must satisfy the function: Y=0 (5.4) 5. Y. is the formalised way of expressing the failure criteria. the strain derivatives in direction to the are related of the plastic potential with respect any rates to the correspondingstress. This postulatesthat the identical is function to the yield and for the Coulomb material results plastic potential in the mathematical prediction that shear causesan increase in the volume of the (dilation). ÖG =ý&7y (5.6) 62 . the yield function can be written as: Y- ýZný c tan .

Figure 5. (5. = -It Itan y. after which no more corresponds a shearstrain about 63 .9) Figure 5. It may be C.13 shows idealisedresults from a shearbox test adaptedfrom Atkinson and Bransby (1978).Variation of a) shear force and b) volumetric strain with shear strain in a granular material (Atkinson and Bransby.8) (5.Experimental observation of consolidated materials show that the actual level of dilation is less than that predicted by equation 5. 1992) and it is therefore usual to define an angleof dilation (w) such that: ýy .13 .6 (Nedderman.7) flow rule therefore have: Materials that obey the associated W=4 flow rule where: Most real materials howevermust use a non-associated W<ý (5. 1978) The figure shows the volumetric strain rate with respectto the shearstrain. This the that volumetric strain at reaches a maximum about point observed is dilation It 2% to of occurs.

4 Drucker-Prager law If the Mohr-Coulomb criterion is consideredto be an extension of the Tresca(1864) based Drucker-Prager is then the shear stress maximum on criterion an criterion (1913) for Mises breakdown. It follows from the inside the surface are treated as elastic and those outside(or more that stresses above inelastic.2Mohr-Coulomb criterion in three-dimensional stress space When the Mohr-Coulomb criterion is projected into three-dimensional stressspaceit forms a yield surface. the treated are as surface) specifically on Figure 5.3.14 deformation.laws ABAQUS behaviour to the this constitutive using model not possible exact and thereforea value of 0° is adopted for the angle of dilation in all the analyses.The Mohr-Coulomb criterion in principal stress space 5. 5.12 where line the were treated as elastic and stress above the line resulted in stressesunder Figure 5.14 .4.4. shows the three-dimensional representationof the plastic Mohr-Coulomb criterion which appearsas an irregular hexagon. This is simply an extension of the above figure 5. This is based the criterion von elastic of on extension shearstrain energy. 64 .

Figure 5.15 - The Drucker-Prager criterion in principal stress space

In principal stress space the Drucker-Prager yield surface appears as a cone (figure 5.15) which has numerical advantages over the Mohr-Coulomb criteria shown in figure 5.14. Numerical problems with the Mohr-Coulomb criterion can occur when in Mohris If direction the to the the yield which normal surface. of yield calculating Coulomb model occurs on a vertex of the cone then the normal direction is hard to

Drucker-Prager The criterion eliminates this problem as the normal to the calculate. defined. be uniquely yield surfacewill always In terms of the stressinvariants the Drucker-Pragercriterion is expressed as: (II, J2) I, + NfJY2 -ß (5.10)

Where Il is the first invariant of the stresstensor:
Il=al+a2+a3 (5.11)

J2is the secondinvariant of the stressdeviatortensor:
`12 -- 6 [\ýx crY) + (a QZJ + (a a., y +r 2+, r +Z5.12)

a and ß are material constants. The Drucker-Pragercriterion can be calibratedin such a way that it approximates the Mohr-Coulomb criterion. This is achievedby adjusting the size of the cone so that

65

the outer apicesof the Mohr-Coulomb coincide with the Drucker-Prager cone. This in figure 5.16. is situation shown

Figure 5.16 - The coincidence of the Drucker-Prager and Mohr-Coulomb criteria (Chen, 1994)

The two criteria will not give the exact same results as they do not coincide at all points. As in the Mohr-Coulomb example, once the yield criterion has been defined then the be in form flow in to that can expressed a similar rule and expressed potential plastic section5.4.3.1. 5.5 Summary The aspectsof the finite element analysis that need to be consideredwith respectto discussed. been Non-linear have solution techniques must be used to silo problems behaviour the non-linear of the structure and the stored solid. accommodate A constitutive law must be used in order to model the finite element continuum as a There large laws bulk are a number solid. of such available and those granular finite being here by discussed. It the element package used were now provided laws by in investigate Chapter 6. the the to chosen outlined methods remains

66

Chapter 6- Investigation and validation of material constitutive laws
6.1 Introduction When using the finite element method it is important to validate the model in some way. This is achieved by comparing results obtained against known conditions. These conditions may include results from experimentsor from reliable theoretical models. For validation of the chosen material constitutive laws and hence the finite element Janssen initially to a compared pressuredistribution. In Janssen's model, results are is boundary (the is there the one condition only stress at surface zero) original work, is but the accuracy of the predictions comparedto real silo pressuremeasurements found to be much improved given the following: " " " The bin is deep. The bin has a rigid wall. The surface has a level fill.

distribution is therefore The finite element model with which to comparethe Janssen rather than starting with a more complex one that takes account of these assumptions three-dimensionalmodel of a rectangularbin.
6.2 Aaisymmetric model - geometry and boundary conditions

An axisymmetric bin, 10m deep with a flat bottom and with diameter 1.5m is is h/d 6.66 This as size chosen = which classifiesthis silo as slender(ENV modelled. 1991-4,1995). It is also deep enough to potentially enable pressuresin the stored Janssen The 5mm the taken to thick asymptotic values. walls are reach as material be in is This than thicker would expected rather a real silo of this size where steel. the shell thickness would be less, but using this thicknessensuresthat the wall in the is Steel finite element model is very stiff and thus satisfiesthe Janssen requirement. linear a elastic material with elastic modulus (E) = 210GPa and modelled as

67

Poisson's ratio (v) = 0.3. All of the nodes making up the base of the silo are restrainedagainstmovementin the y-direction (vertical) but are unrestrainedin the xdirection (radial), allowing the walls and base of the model to expand radially (if needbe) but preventing any rigid body motions. This is shown in figure 6.1. This figure shows schematicallythree supports on the base but in the finite element mesh in be the y-direction. restrained eachnodewould

E' Wall 0

Base Figure 6.1 - Restraint at the base of the finite element model of the bin

This boundary condition could be likened

to having the silo ground-supported

is (i. friction between is initially base there the the as smooth e. modelled no although base of the bin and the material inside). A more detailed study of the effects of the boundary condition at the base is presented later (Chapter 7). The walls are modelled friction Coulomb frictional a simple model. with as

When predicting filling (static) pressures using the finite element method, two been have (Rotter first 1998). is loading The reported et al, a progressive of methods fill method whereby layers of unstressed material are placed into the silo under in iteration Numerical occurs order to produce an equilibrium solution and gravity. then further layers of material are placed into the silo until it is filled. This method has been used successfully by Ragneau et al (1994). The second method is incrementalgravitational loading. The silo is initially filled with unstressedmaterial in increments is full "switched the on" small until self-weight of the and gravity is is This the the one adopted acting upon structure. second method ensiledmaterial in this study. Previousresearchhas shown that different results might be obtained by

68

(1998) there is currently little these methods but aside from Rotter et al's assessment in this area. work comparative Figure 6.2 shows a schematic representation of the finite element model of the axisymmetric silo. The mesh shown is for illustrative purposesonly.

Heavy line indicates shell elements

y Lot (L X

Figure 6.2 - The finite element mesh of an axisymmetric silo

6.3 Material models To describe the ensiled material, five alternative material constitutive models are (Ooi Rotter, 1990) Literature in that the and shows expected response an considered. be bin (small hence type this of will mainly elastic strains) and axisymmetric be for this type of analysis and the type of not may required plasticity conditions failure criterion chosenmay be less important at this stage. The five material models in Chapter 5: are as presented "
"

Linear elastic (LE)
Porous elastic (PE)

69

1) The angle of internal friction can be related to the Poisson's ratio of the material by 2001).1 Linear elastic law Values are required for the elastic modulus (E) and either the Poisson's ratio (v) or the lateral pressure ratio (k) used in the Janssen equation.2. for eachof theseconstitutive laws are determined by performing suitable Parameters tests upon the granular material and translating the results into the finite element model. Values of v and k are interdependant for elastic solids.sin q5) internal friction 4 is the of angle of the material.4.2) 70 .4 Elastic material models 6. and is assumed value and to be constant: k=1.1(1.2 (Rotter." Linear elasticwith Mohr-Coulomb plasticity (LE-MC) 9 Linear elasticwith Drucker-Pragerplasticity (LE-DP) " Porouselasticwith Drucker-Prager plasticity (PE-DP) It may be noticed that the porous elastic model is not combined with the MohrCoulomb criterion. This is becausethe ABAQUS software does not allow this combinationalthoughno reasonfor this is given. k is the ratio of horizontal to vertical stress in the solid in is this the report used as defined by ENV 1991-4 (1995). 6. equation v _k l+k (6. where (6. 6.2. Examples of the types of tests performed on geotechnical materials were given in section5.

The bulk density of the material must be determined. To determine the Janssen in be The figures this shown and all subsequent used. density after a 200mm fall and vibrated (compacted) bulk density. 1995) and therefore k=0.3 shows the wall normal pressures in the deep bin filled with Leighton Buzzard sand as calculated by the linear elastic law. The appropriate Janssen distribution consistentvalues of distribution is also shown. 0= 35. E is taken as 1OMPaafter Chen et al Table 6. 71 . This value must also be used in the Janssen calculations for comparison purposes.4° (Lahlouh et al. These are loose density.576 1. Severalvalues are given for the bulk density by Lahlouh et al (1995). v=0.1 .610 1. pressures must are parameters taken from the individual nodes in the model as opposed to being an average across the face of each element.672 and hence.463 (2000).3164. relating to various stress states within the material.Values of bulk density for Leighton Buzzard sand from Lablouh et al (1995) Initially the bulk density is taken as the mean of thesethreevalues(1. Table 6.For the Leighton Buzzard Sand in question.1 shows thesevalues: Mean loose bulk density (kg/m) Mean bulk density from a 200mm fall (kg/m) Mean vibrated bulk density (kg/m) 1.619kg/m3)in an density be that the to observedat the relatively low pressure would attempt estimate levels experienced in silos. Figure 6.

0
Janssen E 2 Linear elastic

E
08

6

10 05
Wall normal

10
pressure (kPa)

15

20

Figure 6.3 - Wall normal pressure as calculated from linear elastic constitutive law

With the exception of the results near the base, agreement between the finite element Janssen distribution is the and within results 1%. The lack of agreement at the

bottom of the bin is attributed to the effect of the boundary condition of the base. Effects of this type have been noticed by previous authors (Rotter et al, 1998) and are attributed to the proximity of the base. The effect on the pressures of the base boundary condition is discussed in Chapter 7 below. 6.4.1.1 Poisson's ratio as the controlling factor in the linear elastic model In the

From equation 6.2 Poisson's ratio can be determined for any value of k.

axisymmetric case this allows the modelling of almost any granular solid given its density and angle of internal friction. Table 6.2 shows values for the properties of be in from Rotter (2001). that may silos stored materials several

72

Type of bulk solid

Unit weight, ,y

Effective friction, 4)

angle

of

internal

Lower bound, kN/m3

Upper bound, kN/m3

Lower degrees

bound,

Upper bound, degrees

Barley Cement Coal, black Flour
Sand, quartz

7.0 13.0 8.5 6.5
14.0

8.5 16.0 11.0 7.0
17.0

26 40 40 23
30

33 50 60 30
40

Sugar
Wheat

9.0
7.5

9.5
9.0

33
20

38
26

Table 6.2 - Properties of various granular bulk solids as given by Rotter (2001)

The following table shows representative values of k (from the above table)
converted to values of Poisson's ratio. for each material. Type solid of bulk Mean weight, -y unit Effective angle internal friction, 4 Barley 7.75 29.5 0.558 0.358 of k value Eq. 6.1 from Effective Poisson's ratio (Eq. 6.2) An appropriate mean density is also shown

Cement Coal, black Flour Sand, quartz Sugar Wheat

14.5 9.75 6.75 15.5 9.25 8.25

45 50 26.5 35 35.5 23

0.322 0.257 0.609 0.469 0.461 0.670

0.244 0.204 0.378 0.319 0.316 0.401

Table 63 - Properties of granular bulk solids for use in the linear elastic model

73

Figure 6.4 shows finite element results for some of these materials along with the distributions. Janssen corresponding

01 M-70-6T1 2 3-Coal ö4 m 0 ß a E 0 J: ä
Ö7

II
--t--Barley --+ --Barley (Janssen) (FE) --f-Barley At Cement (Janssen) -Cement (FE) -Coal (Janssen) -*-Coal (FE) (Janssen) -t-Wheat Wheat (FE)

6

8

9

10 02468
Uö Wall normal Wall normal pressure pressure

10 1U
(kPa) (kPa)

12

14

16

Figure 6.4 - Comparisons between finite element and Janssen predictions for a range of materials

Again, the agreement between the finite element results and the Janssen distributions is in the order of 1% over the majority of the bin. The materials that have lower

These discussed in 4 effects. pronounced end effects more are y show and of values 7. in Chapter detail more The linear elastic model gives good agreement over the majority of the bin for a large distribution Janssen to the compared range of materials problems. initial in axisymmetric type

The above analyses were carried out using the assumed low value of This value of elastic

(2000) from Chen IOMPa. of et al elastic stiffness

by been has to (Ooi other researchers represent adopted granular materials stiffness be chosen arbitrarily. but 1997) Data to for She, appear would the elastic and

74

for discussed in is difficult to obtain reasons section materials stiffness of granular 5.2.1 but some information is available. Granular material behaviour is known to be dependent on the overall stress level and at low confining pressures the equivalent been be low. has Hartlen to shown very et al material elastic stiffness of a granular (1984) showed that at a confining pressure of 40kPa the elastic modulus of wheat be In 6MPa. the taken the maximum confining pressure may silo studied was about is base. For this the the material approximately l2kPa a wheat near as average stress (determined from the average of the 3 directional stresses). Assuming a linear between. the stiffness of modulus of elasticity and pressure confining relationship is in It 2MPa be to therefore this not unreasonable case. as estimated wheat might is it for l OMPa a stiffer material. as sand assume a modulus of Figure 6.5 shows the effect of changing the Young's modulus of the Leighton Buzzard sand in the axisymmetric model.

0
1 2 -s-iJanssen distribution E=SMPa E=1OMPa E=15MPa E=50MPa 5 6 7

9 10 05 10 Wall normal pressure 15 (kPa) 20 25

Figure 6.5 - The effect of changing the elastic stiffness in the axisymmetric bin

for low Young's do the 6.5 that of modulus predicted Figure values pressures shows not vary significantly. However, when E= 50MPa, the end effect in the bin is more

bin further the These are up relatively pressures unaffected. although pronounced is high indicate that this too to elastic value of modulus represent a probably results

75

is long it but that the taken as as value small then the actual appears granular material is Young's not critical to the performanceof the model. modulus value of
The value of 1OMPa is therefore accepted as a good approximation of the stiffness of

for is Buzzard the remainder of the analyses. Leighton used the sandand 6.4.2 Porous elastic model The porous elastic law uses several specific parameters for which values must be determined. The most suitable way to determine these valueswould be to perform a triaxial test (Bishop and Henkel, 1957). This would give a more completeoverview however bulk Performing type test this behaviour the of solid. the granular of of
the that outside scope of are and expertise equipment specialist significant requires this work. It was therefore decided to initially calibrate the porous elastic model from a variety of literature sources and subsequently check this data with materials in initially law for Values table that the are shown adopted were elastic tests. porous

6.4 along with the sourceof these values.
Parameter name Logarithmic bulk modulus (? ) Poisson's ratio (v) Elastic tensile limit (P` t) Value assumed 0.0217 0.3164 0 kPa Source of value Literature (Been et al, 1991) See Eq. 6.2 From the assumption that this material is cohesionless Initial voids ratio (eo) Initial stress (Po) 0.64 0.01 kPa Literature (Rotter, 2001) The material is unstressed at rest but a small value is

assigned for numerical stability
Table 6.4 - Values used to calibrate the porous elastic constitutive law

The results using these parameters when compared to an equivalent Janssen

distribution are shown below (figure 6.6).

76

ratio and on previous study Therefore investigation was carried out to determine whether one or more of the for X. Poisson's ratio limit be because to tensile the are assumed correctly chosen elastic of the and fact Poisson's the that the material is cohesionless. The behaviour of the material should be entirely elastic as small deformations in the wall and solid are predicted/expected and equilibrium (implicit in Janssen's theory) should be maintained.Wall normal pressure as calculated from the porous elastic constitutive law The figure shows that this material model does not predict the pressure as well as the law linear when compared to the Janssen distribution.7 shows the effect of values adopted Po.0 Janssen distribution 2Porous elastic model a c 10 05 Depth from 10 surface (m) 15 20 Figure 6.6 . the of values changing 77 . Therefore it is assumed that one or more of the values in the porous elastic model has been incorrectly adopted. elastic previous Both of these constitutive laws should produce results that agree with the Janssen distribution in this silo. Figure 6. Po eo or was poorly chosen.

Using a Janssen but it is 1kPa Po to the results closest prediction gives questionable = value of in is initial lkPa is this the to an stress of acceptable case as material whether as initially modelled as weightless and would therefore be experiencing no load.0 1 2 u 3 4 6 7+ 08 9 -Janssen Initial pressure=0. If the value of one of these parameters is changed then the others Figure 6. 78 .3kPa) it this to and models occur may be difficult expected large initial this relatively predict what effect stress may have. 1kPa is also not an insignificant stress with respect to the maximum normal stress that is in bin in future (13. as well as the bulk density.01 kPa -ý -aIndial pressure=0. shows a simplified version of re-calculated must figure 5. are intrinsically linked.11 that represents the volumetric behaviour of the solid in the silo as described by the porous elastic law.1 kPa Initial pressure --1kPa 10 02466 Wall normal 10 pressure 12 (kPa) 14 16 18 Figure 6. investigation.11 it can be seen that these two parameters. the that of eo or value requires assumed From inspection of figure 5.7 .The effect of changing the initial stress in the porous elastic model Changing this value has a noticeable effect on the predicted pressures in the bin but this change is not sufficient to match the results to the Janssen distribution.8 be that to reflect change. to It is therefore ).

Pmax (6.3.aimpuneu ugure to snow compression of suuu in a typical sun Point A represents the volume of the material when no load is applied and can be from initial bulk density. it is unstressed) and the final bulk density is taken as the value measured after a 200mm fall. the voids ratio and particle values of pressure. the final bulk density and the value of the density of the solid it is final in to the the material. calculated density.r figure ma .ahlouh et al (1995) performed 79 .1 A Lahlouh to table calculated.3) =Yk Given this value. Point B represents the material at rest in the filled silo and can be calculated from knowledge of the final Janssen condition (assuming that Janssen is a good representation). Point B can then be plotted since: v=1+e (6. give The initial bulk density is taken as the loosest form (i. possible calculate granular voids ratio that particles corresponds to the Janssenasymptotic condition. vibrated This value is chosen over the (denser) value due to the fact that L.4) By following a similar calculation and taking an initial (unstressed) bulk density and Referring back be 6. be densities bulk that can used to perform these calculations. distribution It is known that for any given silo and material there is a Janssen and that at an infinite depth the normal vertical pressure reaches an asymptote which is given by equation 6. can point et al (1995) pressure. e.

610 0.full had been that the the observed after silo and checks on sand placed equilibrium into the silo it assumed a density lower then the vibrated bulk density.650kg/m3 (Nedderman. The voids ratio is related to the voids fraction by: E (6. For silica this is taken as 2. The voids be from fraction in both (s) given by the these calculated of states can now void ratio equation 6.8 of ? from initial and final densities 80 .5. The initial is initial the taken to the of y as same as that eo and value corresponding pressure OlkPa). diagram be The line. 1-Y=s PS (6. in the information the calculated and value of the above used shows Bulk density (kg/m3) Initial state 1.1992). by joined the can a straight gradient of the are points line between the two points gives the value of logarithmic bulk modulus. in the elastic model porous used The final pressure is taken as the for from 6.681 Pressure (kPa) 0. (O.01 Final (Janssen) state Table 6.5) Where ps is the density of the solid particles.5 . this material which equation calculated asymptotic value Given this information and the assumption that in the semi-logarithmic diagram the drawn.8kPa.5 figure X.576 Voids ratio (e) 0.6) e= 1+E These two states of the material are assumed to exist at some pressure. Table 6.0044 27.646 0.3 is 27.Calculation 1.

This highlights a disadvantage in the gravity method of loading in that if this occurs no more material can be added to the silo model (if required). 81 . as well as the appropriate Janssen calculation. a progressive possible would This phenomenon would only be a if the granular material modelled was very compressible.1.9 .It can now be seen that any comparison between the finite element results and a Janssen distribution must use the final value of bulk density in the Janssen calculations as opposed to the original value which was an average of the three values given in table 6. Again the the to elastic model agreement and comparable there are noticeable end effects and the finite element results do not extend to a full depth of 10m. This fill in be model. This effect is due to compression of the stored material as the gravity load is applied.Finite element results as determined by the recalibrated porous elastic model This model now shows agreement between the results and the Janssen model between linear Janssen. in problem significant the full. applied end silo may up gravity was not completely after case which The in here that order of compressibility so the small change are not modelled materials in volume is not cause for concern but should be taken as a limitation of this simple model. 0 1 2-a3 u Janssen distribution New porous elastic model 5 0 A6 t 08 9 10 05 10 WWNnormal pressure 15 (kPa) 20 25 Figure 6. Figure 6.9 shows the finite element results using the newly determined properties.

fixes point B on the graph by utilising equation 6. which gives the voids ratio at that density.6. 0 1 2 ü3 04 #5 0 10 6 -0 0 9 10 05 10 Wall normal pressure 15 (kPa) 20 25 7 -sJanssen distribution Porous elastic model Figure 6. a greater voids ratio should analysis (say 0.In figure 6.= 0.10. results volume calculated exhibited different It be therefore of set material parameters. may entirely arguedthat an using initially be incorrect. equation 6.5 and 6. that was calculated may the value of The value of X was determined from values of density taken from Lahlouh et al (1995) but there is no 82 .8 only point B is fixed by the equilibrium conditions imposed by calibration against the Janssen equation.10 . This is because the Janssen theory assumes a single value of bulk density and therefore for a given silo.The effect of using different initial conditions in the porous elastic model Again the agreement between the results is good but the overall compressibility.75) is assumed then the value of y and A.4.514kg/m3 and A. For that match of example. 2. can be recalculated as above. values As long as points A and B are joined by the assumed straight line of gradient X and the remainder of the parameters calculated final the then equilibrium accordingly. This particular voids ratio gives y=1. altered.3 gives the value of the maximum vertical pressure.013. Point A however. has been These have by been change. can be moved on the graph by assuming different initial for the parameters. Altering the parameters of the porous elastic model accordingly gives the results shown in figure 6. This pressure along with equations 6. condition calculated by the finite element if initial Janssen.

4. It was proposed by Ooi and Rotter (1990) that in the axisymmetric situation. the wall pressures. on friction dilation laws failure the the of and angle of angle these of the require of be is 0° in dilation The defined.4°. behaviour in be the that material's capable granular will of modelling plastic model large strain situations (as well as still incorporating small strains).1'and the angle of friction is taken to be 35. However this value only relates it by determined Mohr-Coulomb from a friction the model as was used to the angle of Drucker-Prager Mohr-Coulomb In data the to the box test. Both of these infinite deformations because described they allow of as perfectly plastic criteria are the material without any increasein the stresslevel. be to to angle assumed as set out section material 5. in sections outlined were 6. Therefore a failure criterion is required.3 5. match performing options 83 .1 Application of the plasticity criteria to the axisymmetric model derived.4. use model order shear both is There the be that of response models so matched. A failure criterion defines the level of stress at which the material's behaviour changesfrom elastic to inelastic. The Mohr-Coulomb and the Drucker-Prager(1952) criteria are two commonly used full laws be These to a elastomay combinedwith elastic provide plasticity criteria.5. the ensiled material is very likely to undergo inelastic deformations.5 Elastic-plastic models In examining constitutive laws suitable for use in a three-dimensionalmodel where large strains may occur. in the tested using the axisymmetric model again shown has laws the to of whether addition plasticity a significant effect assess elasto-plastic is it be Both that there predicted although expected will none. However. a solely for be law this and examples result was most might sufficient constitutive elastic is figure 6.4. 6.3.how the values where calculated or these ascertaining or results of confirming way However. are two reinterpreted must is One failure for definition this in to the conversion. those values give results that compare very well with the theoretical Janssendistribution and are acceptedas a representationof the material for future constitutive modelsof sand. The principles of these criteria 5.4.3.

triaxial compression and tension. It may be argued that for any subsequent three-dimensional analysis this plane strain invalid but be has been before for this matching procedure used could assumption similar problems (Holst et al. laws and sand.11 shows the results in the axisymmetric bin of the three elasto-plastic LE-DP for PE-DP) (LE-MC. material cohesionless). 1996) and produced results comparable to theoretical flow (M'=O°) Drucker-Prager In the the angle of case of non-dilatant methods. internal friction is given by: tan fl = jsinO (6.9) For the sand this gives values of 46.8) ao1d 1_3 ýß Where d is a parameterrelated to the Mohr-Coulomb cohesionc by: d c =4Cos0 (6. this materials with approach values of recommends The secondapproachis to match the plane strain responseof the two models.. amount of plastic strain further showsthat for small values of a°.1 ° for the internal angle and 0 for the initial yield is is it the (because that c=0.25kPa) the assumed value of a°. In practice a assumed stress for is in (0.7) Where ß is the Drucker-Prager angle of internal friction. The initial yield stressof the material is given by: (6. However the ABAQUS manual (2001) only for low internal friction. order to maintain numerical value small in is due This the to the very small critical axisymmetric analysis not value stability. Figure 6. in Later in testing these three-dimensionalmodels models. constitutive 84 . the effect on wall pressuresis negligible.

o Janssen 2 -n v V LE-MC LE-DP PE-DP -t4 --- 06 WX c8 10 05 Wall normal 10 pressure (kPa) 15 20 Figure 6. in section given 85 .3. failure however does This be that a not mean model will not required models.2. 6. as with the axisymmetric cases pressures about simple predictions described above. is It across wall at any constant et al.6 Three Dimensional models In order to predict the wall pressures in rectangular or square silos a threedimensional model is required. Three-dimensional modelling of this for because is the need silo research towards more commonly used of rare problem (as shown above) the assumption of axisymmetry where structures circular plan-form is valid. pressure important to be able to predict this phenomenon for design use and consequently only a three-dimensional model will suffice. but it is known that in rectangular silos there is a non-uniform depth (Jarrett distribution the 1995).The effect on wall normal pressures of using elasto-plastic constitutive laws in an axisymmetric model As predicted the results show that the use of a failure model in this type of problem is identical by to those the simpler predicted are predicted as pressures unnecessary. elastic for other types of simulation (notably three-dimensional simulation). Methods used by codes in the treatment of three-dimensional problems were 3.11 . A two-dimensional model could be used to make down the the wall.

It was 1. Jarrett rectangular silo are well approximatedby the Janssen et al. 2002). 1995).6.5m deep bin section with a shallow. The silo used in this work had a 2.667). Comparisonwill be made in the current work and the stresses to that of Lahlouh et al (1995). funnel flow hopper.12 shows the layout of this rig. The constitutive models can therefore be validated againstthis as well data is from that available previous studies (Lahlouh et al. 1995. 1995). 86 . At this size the silo could almost be classified as squat (h/d = 1.5m squarein plan-form and is constructed of 6mm thick steel plate. Figure 6. as experimental Jarrett et al.6. This work and subsequent analysis is well reported (Rotter et al. In these works.1 Further validation It has been suggestedthat the averagepressures acrossthe wall at a given depth in a equation (Jarrett. 1991. extensivetesting of a squareplanform silo was for distributions data is the available pressure acrossthe wall carried out and much in the ensiled material.

the solid elements to model the ensiled and elementsto model have been but it Higher could selected elements order was anticipated that material.12 . Advantage is taken of the symmetry of the bin and henceonly 87 .Approxima te fill acewhen ven ado ----------6mmsmooth wall 350 350 Vertical 0 e4 oö® walled section C) N Pressurecell ý 100 8O 10 Ring Colurrin #3 Column Transition 6mm Hopper Il Wý ° 12 13 43.Schematic showing the layout of the experimental rig used by Lablouh et al (1995) The finite element model of the experimental rig uses 4-noded quadrilateral shell brick 8-noded bin.8° outlet 80x80 ý '" ° CD °f oää° 13 wk oo0o0 ° Cohmm #2 Column #1 1500 Column (b) Plan view of concentric hopper 1500 (all dimensionsin mm) (a) View of the model silo Figure 6. large become hence final very and computational resources may the model could have becomestrained.

Figure 6. output 88 . Appendix the may evident of surface upon C shows a typical input dataset for this model and Appendix D shows some sample form in the of contour plots. silo quarter one It is supported at the corner to simulate the The but they themselves modelled. for in here.13 .is the of modelled. in this mesh. shows element with as determine B Appendix to the number of elements used the used method shows mesh. friction Figure Coulomb 6. are not corners of the wall were welded columns in the original experiment with no additional support and this condition is reproduced in the finite element model. As is the axisymmetric case the walls are modelled not modelled simplicity.13 finite frictional the the model. The experimental rig featured a ring beam that.Finite element model of Lahlouh et al's (1995) geometry The finite element model does not initially take account of any conical surcharge been have in fill the that the experiment.

0 0.5 1. each Integration of the finite element results was carried out using Simpson's rule at each level in the silo to produce the average pressure acting at that level. constitutive under-predict the wall pressures considering average in the three-dimensional model when compared to the Janssen distribution.6.14 . not capable of the wall pressures are elastic both lateral that the deformations the of elastic models support shows most of and load near the corners of the walls. 12 (kPa) Figure 6.2 Comparison with Janssen pressure distribution Figure 6. This inaccuracy is caused by the large deformations that occur in the modelled granular bulk solid. The high lateral load causes the flexible wall to deform outwards but the shear strength of the ensiled material means it is incapable following of this deformation. These give rise to large strains in the ensiled material which simple Inspection laws of modelling correctly.25 3 0 1 1.6.75 2 2. The final situation is that the stored material loses 89 .25 0. When laws these values.75 ° ý -Janssen -fLE '. ý. SPE ýý LE-MC PE-DP LE-DP 8S 1.25 0369 WaH normal pressure 4 `.Average wall normal pressures as predicted by different constitutive laws The graph clearly shows the deficiencies in the purely elastic models.14 shows the average (integrated) wall normal pressure as determined from The five Janssen is the appropriate constitutive models. of curve also shown.5 0.

1970).15 .15 0. criterion give an acceptable representation of the Janssen The assumption may therefore be that the Drucker-Prager criterion is a This may be because better model for use in silo problems than the Mohr-Coulomb. For the remainder of the project the suitable choice of constitutive law would appear PE-DP LE-DP The the the to be model or either model. the Mohr-Coulomb criterion does not take into account the intermediate principal does. This is obviously a poor representation of the actions 6.6 0. but both models using the Drucker-Prager distribution.3 0. a real occurring is law. Drucker-Prager Experiments have the model shown that the whereas stress intermediate principal stress does have an effect on the failure of a soil (Lee.Pressures across the wall as predicted by linear elastic law The Mohr-Coulomb model also under-predicts the pressures.15 Figure in shows the pressure across the wall at mid-height silo. load linear It is by that the the clear elastic entirely supported as calculated near the corner of the silo walls.hence large the the and pressures at centre are silo wall zero across a contact with percentage of the wall. This value is difficult to determine directly from the material and would inevitably be an 90 .45 0. to porous elastic restricted based model was chosen because it uses input parameters that can be obtained from bulk If the LE-DP law were chosen then granular solids.ý- Linear elastic model Distance from corner of wall (m) Figure 6. on tests routinely performed it would be necessary to determine a suitable value of Young's modulus. 16 14 12 10 8 6 0 4 2 0 0 0.75 .

63 Comparison with experimental sand data The finite element model is now compared with the experimental data from Lahlouh in Further data is from (1995) Jarrett et al silo. Table 6. field cells of the type also described by Askegaard number of al. a square planform available et al (1995) but Lahlouh's experiments were chosen due to the larger amount of data available. 6.6 gives wall normal pressures for the silo wall obtained from the free field cells in sand. Using PE-DP law from the test allows the modelling of a other extrapolation wide range of materials. The tests of Lahlouh et al (1995) used a number of wall pressure cells of the type described by Askegaard (1989) and also studied in section 10.3. These have been shown to give reliable results when installed correctly in the silo wall (Askegaard et larger A free 1971). that if treated as linear elastic.3m less than the values given. may appear almost identical differences in (for in fact there are small example) voids ratio that could whereas have a large effect on the final material behaviour.3m below the top of the silo and therefore the actual depth below the surface of the sand is approximately 0. 91 .2. (1978) were also used. The vertical component is given in terms of distance from the top of the silo and it is noted that the point of first contact on the wall is approximately 0.data.

0 24.7 19.40 3.2 2.50 18. 1995) silo from free field cells in sand Figure 6. 1995) and finite element wall normal for sand pressures compared to Janssen distribution 92 .Depth below top of silo (m) 0.8 4.1 5.50 1.4 16.2 6. 1995) Janssen distribution --fFinite element results E 0 CL E 1.0 1.05 2.0 7.Wall normal pressures (in kPa) in the experimental (Lahlouh el al.7 10.Integrated experimental (Lahlouh et at.6 4.16 .6 5.25 8.20 2.8 0.16 shows the comparison of the average wall normal pressures from the free field cells and from the finite element model down the depth of the bin.3 7. is distribution Janssen also shown. appropriate The 0 ý0.4 14.25 2.1 13.5 6.75 2.7 6.00 2.8 4.1 5.4 21.0 Table 6.6 .4 6.5 CL 2 2.0 20.9 6.00 1.0 23.0 4.1 11.5 16.50 Distance from corner of bin (m) 0.75 1.9 0.2 8.75 2.2 4.3 5.0 0.3 0.5 02468 Integrated wall normal pressure 10 (kPa) 12 14 Figure 6.5 Experimental (Lahlouh et al.3 7.

but this however gives no information about the distribution of the normal pressures across the wall.75 Figure 6.45 of bin (m) 0.17 shows the pressure distribution across the wall in the from finite levels the the two element and corresponding predictions experiment at law.15 0. s 5 0 0 0. 2m depth 20 15 10.3 Distance from corner 0. PE-DP constitutive model using a 25 Experimental.Finite element predictions of wall normal pressure across the wall compared to experimental data of Lahlouh et al (1995) The finite element model produces predictions of pressure across the wall that show a in The form the the that to experiment.6 0.17 . The is data distribution from finite therefore the compared with obtained experimental element model. Im depth Experimental.The experimental and finite element results closely follow the Janssen distribution. pressures measured at centre of the similar is but closer agreement observed nearer the corners of the wall are under-estimated bin. This under-prediction at the centre of the bin might be of concern if the results bending for design. 1 m depth + -FEA. basis be the being the as moment a at as centre would used were designed insufficient be the with wall may strength. 2m depth -+FEA. Figure 6. The measured wall normal pressures were of a non-uniform distribution. under-estimated and 93 .

681 36.61 initial a of and modulus of 0. This voids ratio give an implies that the gravel is more compressible over the small pressure range that is here. The same approach was used as for sand although this time Lahlouh et al's (1995) equilibrium checks showed that the gravel assumes a more dense state when placed into the bin. Therefore in this case the starting and final bulk densities are taken as the loose and vibrated values respectively.8 Mean angle of wall friction (degrees) 21.6. Leighton Buzzard sand has a mean particle size of 0.18.3 . This was chosen as it had many similar measured properties to the sand but the particle size of the material was larger. Lahlouh et al (1995) performed tests using a pea gravel. Other properties as measured by Lahlouh et al (1995) are shown in table 6.7 .4 Modelling of pea gravel As well as using Leighton Buzzard sand. Property Mean particle diameter (mm) 2.6 are again used and logarithmic bulk 0.4 Table 6. Equations 6. 94 .55mm.55 Mean loose bulk density (kg/m3) Mean vibrated bulk density (kg/m3) Mean density from a 200mm fall (kg/m3) Mean angle of internal friction (degrees) 1.6.7. Later testing showedthis to be correct (section 6.53mm and the pea gravel has a mean particle size of 2.4.Properties of pea gravel measured by Lahlouh et al (1995) It was not felt necessary to model the axisymmetric bin using the simple laws and therefore the axisymmetric model was only used to calibrate the PE-DP constitutive law in a similar way to the sand as described in section 6.644 1.731 1.0098.2.6.7) being assumed This data is again used in the axisymmetric model to validate against the Janssen distribution and the results are shown in figure 6.

19.6. A higher level of compression is observed as a result of the higher value for X. the results show the same high level of corroboration across the majority of the bin as the sand model.18 .Comparison between Janssen and FEA results for pea gravel Again. 6. al's et As with the Leighton Buzzard sand experimental data is The results from the finite free field from cells.5 Comparison to Lahlouh et al's (1995) experimental data The values for the gravel model obtained above are used in the geometry of Lahlouh (1995) work.0 1 2 3 u 8S 5 6 7 4 -ý Porous elastic model Janssen s 10 05 10 Wall normal 15 pressure 20 (kPa) 25 30 Figure 6. cells and wall pressure available data from free field taken to the experimental average compared analysis element in figure distribution 6. Janssen the are shown cells and 95 .

This may be due to the fact that a smaller number of tests were (1995) less by Lahlouh data thus there the gravel and with pea were et al performed for this material.0 s r 0. In the case of the pea gravel the relative cell face is between the the cell quite large and it is possible that medium and to particle size in irregular lead turn might affect the observed pressure to contact which this could dw/dceii 1/30 However. 2002) Janssen distribution o . the results from the experiment and the finite element model are of the form from distribution Janssen the the the obtained experiment are although values of distribution finite by Janssen higher the the than those and given systematically element method. There is also the possibility that due to the larger grain size present in the pea gravel. on this type.Integrated experimental and finite element wall normal pressures compared to for gravel Janssen distribution Again. be the element analysis as shown with compared again 96 .20. 2 2.19 . For the free field cells to operate correctly there must be good contact between the cell and the medium.5 Finde ýelementresufls -.5 Experimental (Lahlouh at al. There is data available for the distribution of pressureacross the wall and this can finite in figure 6. < which should minimise any possible effects of the cell.5 02468 Integrated wall normal 10 pressure 12 (kPa) 14 16 Figure 6.5 'S 1 CL a E 1. the results obtained from the free field cells could be adversely affected.

Janssen theory.20 15 10 5 0 0 0. 6.75 Figure 6.45 40 Z 35 30 + -ý At Experimental.45 of bin (m) 0.3 Distance from corner -ý- FEA.2m depth 0.20 . It can values performed. 1m depth Experimerdal. obtained experimentally from A. on the wall pressure fit best exercise was carried out.6. would experimental towards the centre of the bin.6 Best fit of finite element results to experimental data In order to further investigate the effect of the value of ?. best that the this to to exercise value of conclude required possible was only fit the experimentally observed distributions of wall pressure needs to be a small value. Initially. predictions a X was varied in the sand and the finite fit between least-squares the element results and the gravel models and a data be found This in Appendix E. data the corroboration appear relatively poor. values literature did from derived these that gave predictions and not agree well with were from density Secondly.15 0.6 0.Finite element predictions of wall normal pressure across the wall In this material the prediction of the pressure across the wall compared to the better is However. 2m depth FEA. 6. values were calculated measurements and the 97 . Im depth ` 25 2.7 One-dimensional consolidation tests on the two granular bulk solids The finite element analysis has shown that the selection of the value of logarithmic bulk modulus is critical to the output from the finite element model.

21 the to this sample settle. of the pressure across the wall that was A subsequent best-fit exercise to this experimental data for ? is both bulk but the various that of required a smaller value solids showed failed be. However. By monitoring the displacement of the platen the axial strain can be related to the pressure level in the solid. The overall height of the cell was 300mm and the internal 98 . a triaxial test would have been performed. when used in the three-dimensional model. The will cause as way be long to the enough to ensure that end-effects were not cell was chosen of size large diameter friction had as little to that the the ensure enough wall and significant effect as possible. 140mm. The one-dimensional cylindrical tests are performed by placing the granular bulk solid in a cell and then using a stiff platen to apply a pressure. diameter. shows the arrangement. This type of test idea behaviour it because could give an of material using simple was performed (such testing to as triaxial testing) that requires more rigorous opposed as equipment is a specialist equipment and outside of the scope of this thesis. This would give a more complete picture of the materials behaviour and could have been performed at the low pressure levels that this work deals with (conventional triaxial tests usually subject the specimen to very high pressures). Ideally. provided a not ideal representation of the distribution observed experimentally. that to exactly what value should pinpoint procedures In order to further investigate a suitable value of X for the materials used in this work some simple one-dimensional consolidation tests were performed. these values. Care must be taken when placing the solid in the cell in order to avoid before the test is started This also includes knocking the cell in any consolidation Figure 6.the results obtained showed a high level of corroboration with Janssen theory.

The displacement of the platen has been converted to axial strain (given knowledge of the fill level in the cell) and is plotted against the direct pressure applied.35 0.2 0.15 a 0. The maximum force applied to the platen was 200N which equates to a pressure level of approximately 15kPa. Figure 6.05 0 02468 Pressure 10 (kPa) 12 14 16 18 Sand Figure 6.3 0.Schematic showing the one-dimensional consolidation test cell The tests were performed in a Series 8500 Instron.22 .4 0.One-dimensional consolidation of sand 99 .25 0.21 . This level that would be experienced in a the of pressure representative was chosen as small rectangular silo.1 0.Platen Test cell containing sample Figure 6. 0.22 shows the raw data for one of the tests with Leighton Buzzard sand.

764 1. When 8kPa is again reached in Subsequent the the the continues along original material path.762 1.757 0 0.763 1.758 1.761 1. This new arrangement of grains results in a stiffer material and as the load is re-applied the strain increases only a small amount.5 3 3. If 6.23 figure 6.The graph shows an interesting feature of the material.5 -ýTest S1 Test S2 -s.76 1.5 1 1.4 that the the to made change volume entirely assumption equations due to changein voids ratio then theseresults can be usedto determinethe value of ). the plots shows 1. The tests were performed severaltimes for eachmaterial and the results interpretedto logarithm in the the the of pressure using natural against volume change show in is is 6.765 1.Test S3 Figure 6. strain and exceeded tests revealed similar patterns at different levels of stress.759 1.6. As the pressure approaches 8kPa there is a possible re-ordering of the grains in the material causing the pressure to reduce. for 6.23 . each relevant for the gravel.24 Figure the the to plots sand while shows material.One-dimensional consolidation tests on Leighton Buzzard sand 100 .5 Ln P 2 2. -.

0032 0. as calculated fit to the experimental data suggested they should be.658 1.0026 0.1.662 1.24 .0015 0.5 In P 2 2. As ? is not well reported in the literature for these materials there is no other data to compare these values with.66 1.65 0 0.0031 0.5 3 Test G1 Test G2 Test 03 Figure 6. Sand Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average value 0.664 L 1.652 1.0020 0. X for his data finite interpreted to this give values of own element models. performed a series of rigorous triaxial tests on wheat material.0015 0.5 1 1.8. In and the to the tests were repeated to method employed corroborate above attempt order It was not possible to obtain the exact same type of wheat (Australian hard wheat.0030 Table 6. on 101 .8 .654 1.656 1.One-dimensional consolidation tests on pea gravel The best fit straight line has been added to each set of results to determine the logarithmic bulk modulus and the values are shown in table 6. This difficult it these to values provide a good representation of the assess whether makes Ooi (1990) However.Results from consolidation tests on sand and gravel The value of ? for these materials is in the same order of magnitude as the values lower The best the than the original are all calculations values above.0017 Gravel 0.

the rigorous more perform 6.25 shows consolidation lines for the wheat.5 3 Figure 6.015.0 16 to obtained results.785 - > 1.79 Test W1 Test W2 1.5 2 Ln P 2.77 1. of use was chosen law to the the the critical overall was performance of of model and a portion elastic 102 . in to the of give value order plotted 1. values of without suitable triaxial test.765- 1.25 .775 1.021. 0. This compares by Ooi (1990) the and shows that this simple test may obtained values with well for X having determining for to preliminary calculations.it hoped by but Ooi to that the one-dimensionaltests that show was used was wheat) gave results that were of the correct order of magnitude compared to the triaxial for for X Values the Australian hard wheat ranged from 0.8 Conclusions and choice of values for PE-DP model for Leighton sand and pea gravel After performing initial tests and comparison with theoretical models in an Buzzard finite law the model porous elastic/Drucker-Prager element constitutive axisymmetric determined in It for X in that this the the porous was value project. Figure 6. Again the best fit line has been X.76 1 1.One-dimensional consolidation tests on wheat The average value of X obtained for the type of wheat tested is 0.78 1.

3164 0 0.1 0 0.25 761 0.1 0 0.determine for to tests the materials. Choicesof valuesfor all the parametersdiscussedmust be made basedupon the tests be in The that the remainder of the used out above.306 0.1 0 0.015 39.445 0. values will calculations carried or has been based in 6.25 0(0) (°) yf aoc(kPa) v P"t (kPa) 9 45. correct exerciseperformed on the experimentalresults of Lahlouh et al (1995 ) has shown that a very small value of X well but higher values may be required to better fit would predict the cornerpressures the experimentaldatain the middle of the bin.002 1704 0. These tests values were performed number of be in 2 to the that needs small value of order to best match the Janssen showed distribution given the density data available. Property Leighton Buzzard Sand Pea Gravel Wheat yo(kg/m3) eo 1587 0.003 46. ?.392 0 0.9.67 0.44 Table 6. Simple consolidation tests have also determined from density based calculations is that the of magnitude order shown is hard The best fit but to the actual value pinpoint.Final properties used for the materials in the finite element model 103 .9 .25 0.555 0.8 0. table chosen upon the consolidation tests analysesare given performed in section6.3685 0 0.7.

as modelled In section 6.1). This internal lower friction (and hence higher that of with a value materials a showed larger bin (figure 6. boundary differing the conditions at with 7. in These take the form of a local pressure the axisymmetric normal pressures increasenear the base when compared to the Janssendistribution.1 Flat-bottomed axisymmetric bin The axisymmetric examples presented in the previous chapter showed that given sound representation of the stored bulk solid the finite elementresults comparevery from in Janssen the prediction apart regions near the base.3 a range of materials was modelled in the flat-bottomed silo.4).4.The effect of the boundary bin condition at the base of the In Chapter 6 it was noted that there were end effects presentin the results for the wall bin. This the over a proportion end-effects of exhibited of v) value due larger be Poisson's is larger to the Poisson effect to ratio giving a assumed effect is high.1 shows a plot of Poisson's ratio versus the depth at finite the which prediction.Chapter 7. Figure 7. The interaction between the base and the stored solid has been idealised and frictionless. This is attributed to the influence of the basecondition but it is not clear whetherthis a function of the in some real or reflects phenomenon silos. The results presented modelling process in this chapter show an investigation into this phenomenonusing a variety of models base. All of the with well have been flat-bottomed far and the baseof the structurehas been analysed models so length in but in its the the x-direction (figure y-direction entire not restrained along 6. element prediction in the bin starts to deviate from the Janssen 104 . leading in base the turn to more load being the vertical stress where near transferred to the wall.

The effect of Poisson's ratio on the depth over which end effects are present Clearly the higher the Poisson's ratio the greater the distance over which the endeffect occurs.45 Figure 7. Figure 7.4 0. Janssen the to close 105 .7.15 Coal f Cemert 0.2 8.1 .25 0.1 Frictionless base condition Results for the model that was studied in the previous chapter are again presented here. a number of models were represent a real phenomenon or element model have different boundary base These the conditions models at of the silo. 9 19 1 Wheat Sand 9.3 Poisson's Ratio 0.4 0.2 shows the distribution of wall normal pressure at the bottom of the law linear the and the porous elastic/Drucker-Prager elastic wall using law to describe the ensiled material's behaviour. concentric 7.412.8 I8 Barley 19 8.1.2 0.6 CL. created.2 9.35 0.6 ttf 0ý8.c ui 0 8. Only the area of the bin near the base is in from bin this the the the away area parallel section results of are very as shown distribution. In order to investigate whether the observed end-effects are a function of the finite in silos.6a RN7. Initially a flat-bottomed axisymmetric silo is modelled and investigated and then a is hopper addedwith varying wall angles.

8 9. Figure 7.3 . 9 9. The linear elastic model was repeated with the mesh density doubled to check that the effect is not a function of the mesh density.Pressures near the base using different constitutive laws Only a small difference in the wall pressures predicted near the base is observed.6 9.Effect of doubling the mesh density on wall normal pressures 106 .1 9.6 9.7 r 9.3 shows the results for this.2 9. The portion of the bin over which the end-effect is apparentis the samefor both material laws.9 10 10 12 14 WaN normal pressure 16 (kPa) II Janssen --atOriginal mesh Doubled mesh 18 20 Figure 7.4 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.9 10 10 12 14 Wall normal pressure 16 (kPa) 18 20 - Figure 7.4 'at 9.8 9.2 .1 9. attributable to the way the materials are modelled.3 9.5 E 9.2 f Janssen p®P LE w m 9.

the results showsthat the density changenear the basein the linear elastic model is in the region of 0.445).25%. Following theseobservations. assumed coefficient of friction previous as was not base is (assuming be that the the the same as seen on wall constructed from the would same material). original 107 .4) shows the effect of adopting a frictional base base the the pressure wall normal near on comparedto the results from the condition frictionless simulation. This would cause any density change to increase in magnitudeleading to the end-effect acting over a larger percentageof the however. 7. Therefore the above analysis is repeated with the coefficient of friction between the base and the stored material set to the same as that on the wall (µ = 0. As a check on whetherthe observedeffect is causedby a density changethe analysis is re-run with the gravity load doubled. The following figure (figure 7.1. This is insufficient to account for the increased pressureif the higher densityvalue is usedin the Janssen equation.2 Frictional base condition In a real silo of this type the interaction between the base and the stored material is in The frictionless the analysis. is This that this shows analysis not the caseand further inspection of wall.the remainder of the analysis of the flat-bottomed silo is carried out using the linear elasticmaterial constitutive law.Again the proportion of the bin over which the end effect acts is unchangedand only in minor changes the valuesare observedcomparedto the original mesh density.

4° internal (4 4) therefore tan the coefficient = and materials =µ= of 0. shown a small of effect frictional different Abaqus the the coefficients of software package has an extension implies This friction frictional that the "rough" option. as analyses are value.71).71).6 9.L were This effect also extends over the final 1m of the bin (10% of is chosen to represent the value friction 35.3m of the bin wall. by the weight of the material above.5 9.5.445 9. in any change the total depth). option coefficient µ a o0 108 . another is chosen arbitrarily to observe the from Results in figure these 7.09 (µ and value of µ=0. Using this coefficient of friction causes the stored material to "see" the base as The layer value of g=0.The effect of a frictional base in an axisymmetric bin A difference in wall pressure can be seen in the final 0. The 0. Also. this leads to the observed reduction in pressure in this area. 16 (kPa) 18 20 Figure 7. The final node experiences a pressure reduction of 7.8 O 9.9 9. In the final 0.2 -Janssen distribution Smooth base -- 9.09 of material.4 'AC 9.9 108 10 12 Wall normal 14 pressure i.71 = adopted values of . In order to further investigate this mechanism other artificial 0.7 -ý-k=0.3 9.3m of the bin there is an effect that can be attributed to the frictional nature of the base but this is superimposed on another phenomena that appears unchanged by friction.4 . This figure also shows that there are two end-effects in operation.1 9.5% compared to the original frictionless being base forced frictional The the the nature of prevents material outwards model.

8 9.445. however. 9 91 =9 2 =7 . 9.5.which is physically meaningless but simulates contact that is effectively tied. rough Therefore another mechanism to account for the increased pressure must be in 109 . the the predicted pressure near on effect even assuming the some does base it the not eliminate end-effect condition entirely.The effect of adopting different values of µ The results obtained using µ=0. merely reduces it.5 E E 9.1.3 Base and wall not connected The results presentedabove showedthat adoption of a number of baseconditions had base.9 10 8 10 12 Well normal 14 pressure 16 (kPa) 18 20 Figure 7. it can be seen that the effect is similar to the but due fully frictional base to the the models the final node rough nature of previous in in is therefore the corner.7 9.5 . Predictions using this model are also shown in figure 7.71 from µ=0. In general there is a trend of pressure reduction near the base as the increases.s 9. coefficient of effectively reduced in direction.09 are slightly lower in magnitude than the are lower than those obtained frictionless results while those obtained from µ=0.4 distribution -Janssen Smooth base -0 1 -*- A=0. and contact with the base.71 Rough base 9.3 9.09 0. the the movement radial against node restraining 7. µ value of In the case of the rough base condition. experiences a much that is due high This lateral friction to the pressure.

6 w 9. Figure 7. Figure 7.5m the the that the wall above virtue of approximately a maximum is base deformation base the the the very stiff radially. deflection near the top of the silo. and wall connected are and in is is 0. friction coeffiecient = 0 71) 0.6 frictional 0. Moving down the wall this deflection increases to base. no and wall are This allows the wall to expand at all levels including near the base.3 9. smooth base con condition wall. condition 9.Wall normal pressure predictions in the base and wall disconnected model A marked increase in pressure near the bottom of the wall is still apparent. which result of a passive pressure longer connected.4 9.2 Janssen prediction 9.71) frictionless (p for this the contact a and = model using results shows base between the and the stored solid.6 .5 ý9. --ý dition 5mm wa ll.in deformation is little Inspection the that there the shell radial shows of operation.71) .9 10 05 Wall normal 10 pressure (kPa) 15 20 -ý '-~ 5mm wall. base and wall disconnected th b dition) base (smoo (smooth ase con condition) 5mm wall wall.7 9. general observed. This is due to stored material being restrained from radial movement friction. In the is base in below frictional there the the the a reduction at pressure contact model with Janssen value. by base the along However. It that this the therefore to proposed area wall effectively quickly reduces is back therefore the the the towards and solid observed end-effect stored moving in base in A the the model was constructed solid. and should therefore reduce the observed effect. an increase in pressure above this region near is In is the base end-effect not eliminated. . still the 110 . By fact 0.8 9. base and wall not connected (frictional base.

35 30 -E+ -m n 9.39 k=0.2 Horizontal and vertical stress in the stored solid In order for the observed wall pressure to change from that predicted by Janssen there must be a change in the distribution of stress in the material.452 the ratio average values. calculated as which with well agrees is consistent with the material being modelled. Figure 7.75 Distance from axis of symmetry Figure 7.7m in the frictionless base model.7m depth horizontal stress 9. element These results reflect those of Ooi and Rotter (1990).7 shows the distribution of this generally cylindrical silo horizontal and vertical stress through the stored material at a depth of 8m and 9.45 (m) 0.57 the the at centre on solid and with model near the wall.15 0. 111 .7m (which is inside from Janssen distribution) deviation is longer is the that a experiencing no the area uniform.The distribution of horizontal and vertical stress at two levels in the axisymmetric silo model The distribution of both horizontal and vertical stress is uniform at 8m depth and k is The Janssen 0.3 0.6 0.. This in finite k to the the the variations value the of of centre at k=0.7 .7.8m depth horizontal stress -k 8m depth vertical stress -A value (Vertical stress) -Janssen Janssen value (Horizontal stress) 15 10 0 0. The distribution of horizontal and vertical stress at a depth of 9.7m depth vertical stress 25 20 -+. There is a large increase in vertical stress and a decrease in horizontal stress leads large in bin. The Janssen theory bin is invariant the the that across at any given level and in a stress assumes is found be to true.

the effective coefficient of friction reduces.3 of friction 0.445). eventually diminishing to base. stress vertical of all supporting higher lateral leading bin in to the the stress at wall order to maintain of centre equilibrium.Inspection of the results shows that the maximum shear within the material occurs frictional increases due its This to the nature.1 0. Nearer the base however.Effective coefficient of wall friction in the sand model Down the majority of the wall the coefficient is as specified (µ = 0. The shear reduces closer to the base because of the support the material base. 112 . relative surfaces contact Although the coefficient of friction is if is between it is there in the the mobilised no not movement model contact specified be This to gives rise shear and normal stresses which movement can used surfaces.8 .2 Coefficient 0. 0 1 2 3 4 m S 6 7 9 10 0 0. follows It from is little therefore that there the rigid as vertically receives movement of the solid in this area the frictional nature of the wall may not be fully friction determined from the Figure 7.8 the shows effective coefficient of mobilised. shear with depth up to a wall near maximum. This in the effective value of µ is a possible cause of the reduction very zero at the observed internal stress distributions in the solid as wall friction is no longer is Vertical therefore transferred to the the stress. finite elementresults. The reasonthe friction is not mobilised near the base is due to the movement of the to one another.5 Figure 7.4 0.

9. friction is fully mobilised all the way because the that allowed movement. Near the bottom of the bin the rigid base (which is fully supported in the vertical direction) stops the stored solid moving down the wall. distribution.8 ° 9.9 .2 9. Inspection of the normal and shear stress at the wall however. Changing the value of stiffness of the supporting in has little the in the to the movement amount of solid alter effect on order springs pressure predictions. 113 . The silo is again modelled as having the wall and base disconnected. leading to finite element predictions that are closer to the Janssen Figure 7.9 shows the results from this model. friction.9 -s-ý Janssen distribution Base supported by springs Original model (connected base) 10 02468 Wall normal 10 pressure 12 (kPa) 14 16 18 Figure 7.3 ZIA 9.5 9. bin wall.6 E 9.Wall normal pressures from the model with spring-supported base The initial observation is that this representation of the boundary condition increases the magnitude of the end effect. wall This leads to reduced shear stresses and hence the reduced value of If the base condition could be modelled in such a way as to allow the full friction the to weight of the stored material then the end effect seen support wall should be much reduced.to calculated the effective coefficient of friction.445.7 9. of shows down the bin wall with the prescribed value of µ=0. The base is large by movement of the solid then supported springs which allow a reasonably friction down the the This at all points mobilise movement should allowed above.

772e-03 75%) 2 ý1 ODB: frictionlese.345e-04 +8.: I -9.10 .2-1 Fri Jul 05 09: 28: 17 GMT Daylight Time Step: Step-1 Var: Increment Primary 6: Step LE.364e-05 -1.436e-03 -1.327e-03 -2.104e-03 -2.000 Deformed Var: U Deformation Scale Factor: +1.69ße-04 -4. C[it.681e-04 -2.Radial strain contour plot in axisymmetric model 114 .10 and 7.881e-03 -2.721e-05 -1.000e+00 Figure 7.679e-05 -6. LEll (Ave.7.Vertical strain contour plot in axisymmetric model LS.202e-o4 75%) I 24 ODB: frictionleem.676e-04 -9. odb ABAQUS/Standard 6.2-1 Fri Jul 05 09: 28: 17 GMT Daylight Time Step-1 Step: Increment Var: Primary 6: Step LE. LE22 Time - 1. odb ABAQUS/Standard 6. LE22 (Ave.448e-04 -7.176e-04 -1.903e-04 -1.220e-04 -5.11 show contour plots of the vertical and radial strain in the stored frictionless from base the taken original condition model.849e-04 +1.689e-04 -3. LE11 Time - 1.928e-05 -3.: +1.000e+00 Figure 7.213e-03 -1. Crit.193e-04 -3.185e-04 -2.3 Strain in the stored material Figures 7.406e-05 +3.000 Deformed Var: U Deformation Scale Factor: +1.550e-03 -2.659e-03 -1. material LE.11 .

The results show the shear stress to be very low in these areas and therefore the horizontal and vertical stresses are assumed to be principal stresses. rigure /. The resulting Poisson effect leads to high tensile lateral strain at this point (figure 7.12 illustrated by consideration of two elements of material near the base of the silo. prediction.10 shows that there is a high compressive vertical strain at the centre of the bin near the base. the adjacent a slice of of material centre movement at formulating in his by Janssen is (such that theory) used considered as equilibrium is load is horizontal. 115 .11) which in turn leads to high compressive lateral strain adjacent to the wall. near own under base is longer the However. This leads to the observed pressures that are higher than the Janssen This mechanism is shown in figure 7. 1L - AICCRSu1SW Lu 7R: GVULII 1VI UUSCI VCU CUU-CIICCL Inspection of the vertical deformation in the solid show that there is more downward If bin in to the than the wall. the neared slice rigid can when no sag and the centre. applied slice gravity then like beam is the a supported at each end sagging slice sags rather applied gravity larger This leads deformations the to its observed vertical weight.Figure 7. to Once the this before the model.

Effect of small angled hopper on the wall normal pressure prediction 7.5 9.13 .9 10 L `--lam 10 12 14 16 18 20 Well normal pressure (kPs) Figure 7. slope shows the results move attempting from these models along with the original flat-bottomed bin for comparison.4 E 9.3 " -ºýa 9. This is because the high lateral compressive strain adjacent to the wall down by be the to the the of material attempting slightly action move relieved will facing hopper. have The the a contact condition on patterns of wall all models pressure observed are as predicted.6 --F 2' up Flat base 2' down distribution 9. one with a 2° upward from base (sloping downward the transition) and upwards one with a sloping sloping base.therefore the material at the centre experiences the observed increase in vertical strain. The results obtained have shown that the choice of boundary condition 116 . the the upwards model should experience sloping wall of bin in increase the the the the material at centre end-effect since of will now be an down Figure 7. These frictionless base. If the above proposed decrease holds in the model that slopes true then the end-effect should mechanism downwards. Conversely.2 9 -Janssen .7 9.4 Summary of flat-bottomed model A number of finite element models with differing boundary conditions have been investigated. 9. also of 2° (sloping downwards from the transition).8 9.13 towards the the to wall. In order to test this theory two more models are created.

have a considerable effect on the accuracy of the pressures predicted when can made distribution.5 Hopper base condition The work is now extended by considering a similar model but with a concentric hopper at the base rather than the flat bottom. The mechanism identified above accounts for the initial observations concerning the end effect occurring over larger portions of the bin for materials with a higher value increases Poisson's increase As due to Poisson's the the ratio end effect will ratio. Figure 7. 7. using of angle 117 . Janssen the to compared A mechanism to account for the increased and further investigation base has been identified the near observed pressures supports the proposed theory. consistent with definition figure 3. The model is now supported at the junction of the hopper and the wall. of larger Poisson effects near the base where the vertical strain near the centre is increasing. 60° and 75°.2) chosen initially are 15°. The hopper angles ((x'. This simulates the silo being supported from the ring beam as would be common in a silo of this type.14 shows the wall pressures in the parallel section of the silo for the hopper in linear to the 45° the represent elastic model sand. 30°. practice The walls of the hopper are modelled as frictional with the same coefficient of friction as the wall. 45°. The effect of the angle of the hopper on the wall pressures above the transition is investigated. It is not realistic to represent this type boundary therefore the supported and supporting ground condition must as model of be changed.

Janssen the with The end effect in this case does not extend over such a large portion of the bin as was observed in the flat-bottomed case.6 9.5 E 9.The wall normal pressure above the transition with a 45° concentric hopper Again only the bottom of the wall is plotted as results above this point compare well distribution. slid The pressures from this distorted element are therefore disregarded. for large down the this the wall accounting normal pressure value. seen are a 118 . Figure 7. Other (Martinez 2002) have distortion et al.9 10 05 10 15 Wall normal 20 pressure 25 (kPa) 30 35 40 Figure 7. The final node large inspection pressure and a very of the results shows that this node has exhibits into hopper.9 9. Above the level of this fmal element there is a decrease of pressure when compared to the Janssen distribution.2 n Janssen -r: 45' 9.4 9.8 9.1 ET9. As in the previous investigation the mesh was doubled to check whether the effects density.3 9. also observed of the mesh at the researchers transition in problems of this type and concluded that this distortion can lead to unreliable pressure predictions.15 function the mesh of shows these results.7 9.14 .

8 10 02468 Wall normal pressure 10 (kPa) 12 14 16 Figure 7. Even in this simple case the use of the linear elastic model may not be sufficient to accurately model the behaviour around in the transition.9 9. The figure Chapter in 7. It is apparent that in this model the doubling of the mesh has an effect on the With dense just the the several more mesh of nodes above the pressures.1 9.16 shows the again mesh used and outlined from linear law.7 9.2 9.6 9.5 e 9.15 .3 9. as such geometry changes The analysis is therefore repeated using the linear elastic/Drucker-Prager model is denser 6. the those to elastic obtained results compared 119 .Wall normal pressure near the base of the model with a hopper The final node that has moved into the hopper (and therefore shows a very large has is been to therefore give and unreliable results considered removed pressure) from this plot to improve clarity. observed transition have zero pressures implying that there is a loss of contact between the stored material and the wall at this point.4 -Janssen -ý-ý45' original mesh 45' dense mesh E 9.

the stress resulting affect would It is therefore accepted that the linear is law not suitable to model this type of geometry and the remainder of the elastic investigation is continued using the PEDP constitutive law for the ensiled material.1 9.9 10 02468 Well normal pressure (kPe) 10 12 14 Figure 7.8 9.4 -Janssen ---= 45' LE law 45' PEDPlaw E 9.16 .6 1 9. inspection of the results shows plastic strains forming near the transition which distribution.7 C29. Figure 7.5 9.17 shows the effect of changing the hopper angle on the wall normal pressure above the transition.2 9.9 9. 120 .Comparison of analysis with LE and PEDP constitutive laws There is a very large difference in the predicted form of the pressure distribution.3 9.

18.45" gp" E 9. Inspection of the vertical and radial strains in the model shows that hopper leads deformation the to tensile vertical strain adjacent to the wall of outward above the transition. A Poisson effect in this area leads to the reduced lateral is If this mechanism a correct representation of the actions occurring then pressures. the transition the above are shown pressures results 121 .5 -T e 9.9 9.1 9.8 9.The effect of altering the angle of the hopper on pressures above the transition As the hopper angle increases there is a systematic reduction of wall pressure above the transition. The 15° hopper is therefore re-run with a fully rigid hopper wall and the in figure for 7.4 f 30' ý.6 9.9 10 05 Wall normal 10 pressure (kPa) 15 20 Figure 7. hopper lead is fully to the should wall a situation where vertical strain rigid a deforming) hopper is longer (since the no and an end-effect above wall compressive the value of the Janssen prediction will be observed similar to the flat-bottomed model.7 -ý- 75" 92 9.2 Janssen 15" T e- 9.17 .3 9.

18 .9.5.9 10 579 11 Wall normal 13 pressure 15 (kPa) 17 19 . modelled contact surfaces are 122 . 7.2 9.8 9. 15* E t 9. The pressure shown on the final node is disregarded as inspection of the results show this to be anomalous due to the way the in this area. The results are presented in a plot of normalised depth below the transition level against the pressures.6 9.ýM1 Figure 7.1 Pressures in the hopper In the previous section it was observed that even though the cylindrical hopper walls 5mm thick there was still an effect on the pressures above the as modelled were transition resulting from deformations in the hopper wall.3 9.19 shows the normal pressures in the hopper for the 5 angles chosen for the analysis.7 9.4 T 9.5 Janssen 15' Rigid wall.The effect on wall pressures above the transition of a rigid hopper wall As expected there is now an increase in lateral wall pressure and inspection of the strains in the material show that the mechanism proposed above is a good representation of the actions occurring. Figure 7. It therefore follows that the deformations of the hopper wall will have an effect on the pressures in the hopper itself.

2 ODB: 15pe.8 _ -0.3 w 1 2 2))2 25 5 33 3 -0.714. Magnitude U Deformation 1.0 1 11 e -0.914. the of wall magnified plot Magnitude +1.20 shows a much deformations in the 15° hopper model. -05 +3.791e-04 +1.000 Scale Factor: +5.471e-04 +1.2-1 Tue Oct 01 10: 35: 05 GMT Daylight Time 2002 Step: Step-2 Increment Var: Primary Var: Deformed 34: Step Time U.4 z -0.Deformation of the hopper wall 123 .2 -0.2u .631e-04 +1.145e-06 U.1 -0. odb ABAQUS/Standard 6.7 +15' A--' a -r-ý-Air Air 30' 4530' 45' 60' 60' -0.951e-04 +1.19 . shape of the hopper wall shows that there shallow is a deformation of the hopper wall away from the stored bulk solid in this area lower in the observed pressure predictions.151e-04 +9.311.6 -0. -05 +3.9 -1 27 - 75' -7s Normal pressure on hopper well (kPe) Figure 7.314.Normal pressure in hoppers of varying angles A pressure reduction just below the transition can be seen in the results for hoppers of Inspection deformed the of angles.114. -05 +6. resulting Figure 7. -04 +1.9146-05 +8. -05 +1.514.000e+02 r igure 7. -05 +5.5 1 0.

1 -0. Figure 7. 0 -0.6 -0.7 -0.The area that shows the largest deformations corresponds to the pressure reduction. at stress 124 .21. This reduction is a result of the stored material arching across the bulge and the effect is more pronounced in models with shallow hopper angles. In the case of the fully rigid wall the pressure in line is form by ENV 1991that that much with predicted very a assumes prediction 4 (1995).5 -0. This friction coefficient is calculated by relating the shearto normal the nodes. model predicted including in Results a rigid are shown wall. The deformations are a hopper load being the the on acting greater in shallower hoppers as vertical result of less of the load is supported by the frictional hopper wall.21 . -0.9 + --s-- 112 _ -4 i 5mm hopper waft 8mm hopper waq hopper wall 4 -'-10mm Rigidhopper wall Normal pressure on hopper wall (kPa) Figure 7. repeated with varying wall stiffness figure 7.2 0.8 _ -0. If the wall deformations are reduced then the magnitude of reduction in pressure be The 15° hopper is hopper in therefore the should reduced.22 shows the effective coefficient of friction in the models with different hopper angles.Effect on hopper wall pressure predictions of varying wall stiffness As the wall thickness increases there is a systematic increase in the hopper pressure immediately below the transition. 4 -0 .03 E .

Such a model was attempted but elimination of the end-effect entirely was not possible. the the prediction of wall pressures results near varying produce model can When modelling a flat-bottomed bin there is an increase in pressure near the base.1 c -0.5 CL -0.-45° X E 60* 75° -0.0 -0. It has been shown that this phenomenon is present in models that assume smooth base base A base frictional theoretical number of conditions conditions. conditions and determine in to that the a mechanism an attempt explains analysed also were for A that the accounts mechanism observed endsuitable effect.9 -1 Effective coefficient of friction on hopper wall Figure 7.8 z -0.Effective coefficient of friction in hoppers of different angles It is clear that in models with shallow hopper angles the friction is not mobilised fully fully be in friction below is there mobilised at any point which will not angle an and the hopper.3 E -0. end observed further testing appears sound. 125 . supported at deform base flexible leads the is that to the the load reducing would effect applied the high vertical compressive strain at the centre of the bin.6 Conclusion It has been shown that variations in the assumed base conditions in the finite element for base.2 0.6 0.7 ö 0. 7. Based upon this identified been has and with effects flexible base and is is it that a reasonably a model with proposed mechanism Janssen As to the the pressures very close exhibit edge could prediction.22 .4 -ý-15° --30° .

it leads the the transition that to loss of contactbetween of change angle at shown was wall and solid when using a linear elastic material model.Adding a hopper to the model results in pressures that are more consistent with Janssen theory over a greater portion of the parallel section of the silo. 126 . Using the PEDP constitutive law gives pressure predictions that are very much different to the results obtained from the LE constitutive law. especially when the hopper angle is shallow. it has suitable not constitutive also been shown that the flexibility of the hopper wall can have a large effect on the wall pressuresabove the transition and in the hopper itself. Finally. Inspection of the results shows that there is in the region of the transition and therefore the LE considerable plastic straining is for law axisymmetric models with hoppers. However.

Further investigation of the geometry of Lahlouh et al (1995) 8.Chapter 8. 8. 127 . the finite element model and the experimental data showed a good level of agreement From measurements made with free field cells the horizontal the and vertical stress levels in the stored solid showed work experimental to be non-uniform at a given level In subsequent work Rotter et al (2002) proposed internal for the to observed account stress patterns.2 Patterns of vertical stressin the stored material Chapter 6 presented some basic comparisons between experimental work (Lahlouh et finite This for 1995) that. lead to the already wall pressures stresses Based upon the experimental observations. the showed results. Rotter et al (2002) proposed the arching in figure 8. Lahlouh's work also gives in the stored bulk solid. As well as data giving the wall pressuresin the bin. These values were detailed measurementsof the stresses load investigate transfer in the silo and to determine overall to of mechanisms used k for local the materials. and al. of comers These internal down and across the bin wall. of values and Rotter et al (2002) analysed the data of Lahlouh et al (1995) and proposed an in from to two parameters. This comparison is work now extended.1 Introduction In Chapter 6 some results for a small squaresilo using the geometry of Lahlouh et al (1995) were presented and comparedto the finite element model. a mechanism discussed. predict wall normal pressures a rule square silo empirical This proposed rule is now compared to the finite element results for various ensiled materials. load by The the weight of the material being transferred to the caused silo.1) (shown to in the explain pictorially the patterns of stress mechanism bulk between This the the structurally stiff solid stored granular arching shows solid. element wall normal pressures.

1 . near stresses vertical Figure 8. of this corner and load transferral is obtained from the observed wall pressure distributions and higher the the corners of silo. al et work of 8.2 shows the vertical stress patterns in sand at two levels from the finite element model.higher in in the stored solid nearer the these structurally stiff areas results stresses bin internal lower Evidence the the nearer midside stresses of wall. 128 .Proposed arching mechanism of Rotter et al (2002) in rectangular silo It is possible to compare the stress patterns in the granular bulk solid found in the by finite (2002) Figure the those Rotter produced element with model.

00 Figure 8. oo 9 .50 7.00 19.00 2. ISO 11.00 6.50 I _' O.00 19. ý .50 "pý o9. method relatively and nature of readings stress vertical is difficult in that the to repeatability means experiment achieve no material stored is This feature is difficult the how to performed.00 10. the the materials. same general patterns of given 129 . SO 9.00 11.00 .00 1 5.00 wry} ý2 5. op-ý'+ ýdºý 6.00 6. conditions etc.00 14.00 7.1m from surface of fill ýý\\ 13 Lk II 12..00 2 3.00 21.2 . random experiment carefully matter finite in the element analysis which will always produce the same results recreate boundary However.00 17.00 1 3.00 22.Patterns of vertical stress at lm and 2m below the surface of the solid finite between the and element results for these Direct comparison experimental The fill is the meaningless.00 24.50 _.ýT' 9. r.00 20.

Pieper Wenzel. The higher vertical stresses near the comer of the bin by finite in the the element analysis. 1965.1995). One major feature of the finite element is the region of high vertical stress at the that experimentally was not observed results Comparison the solid. sources g. of previously proposed 8.3 shows the average and local variation of k down the depth of the silo from the finite element model both locally and on average for sand.4 shows the for gravel same In both figures the Rankine active ratio of k is plotted as well as k from a current designcode (ENV 1991-4. solid section of stored The peak seen in the finite element model may be a function of the loading or the modelling but appears to have no effect on the predictions of the wall pressures.1995). Figure 8. et al present data for experiments the local and mean values of k observed in the experimental silo using fills of sand and pea gravel These may be compared with values obtained from the finite element from (e. as are the are reproduced experiment observed lower stresses near the midside of the walls. Rotter in the silo same et al. 130 . The simple finite element model described in Chapter 6 has produced consistent with experimental observation and these results appear to support the load theory transfer in the material. and other and analysis Figure 8. ENV 1991-4.stress can be compared.1 Average and local values of k It has been shown that the local value of the horizontal to vertical pressure ratio can alter significantly within a silo. with similar contour plots of the experimental stored centre of data in Rotter et al (2002) shows the vertical stress to be low through the crossfrom in apart regions near the comer. Variation has also been observed between repeat (Ooi (2002) 1990).2.

25 2.5 1.6 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.75 I 1 .4 0.75 I I i l a 2 2.9 Figure 8.5 pk k comer (EXP) k midside (EXP) -Rankine active ENV 1991-4 -- 0.1 0.8 0.Local and average values of k in sand 131 .3 .7 0.5 k 0. o 0 a 0 1.5 0.25 Average k (FE) -" " -Average comer (FE) -ýýk Ak midside (FE) <Average -_ýAverage k (EXP) 0.25 E 1.

0 Average k (FE) 0. 1 ENV 1991-4 o w 0 CL M 1.5 I .4 .6 1. The above graphs show that the average values of k determined from the finite the experimental and values show acceptable correlation with each results element 132 .2 1. Mohr-Coulomb value of internal friction whereas these predictions are from a Drucker-Prager model which does not match the Mohr-Coulomb at all points (figure 5.75 .5 Figure 8. 2.25 I " 0 0.Local and average values of k in gravel It may first be noted that the value of k at the midside of the bin falls below the active is This a result of the Rankine active value being calculated from a Rankine value.8 k 1 1. Average k (EXP) -ýýAverage k comer (EXP) kcomer ýk midside (EXP) Rankine active -0.25 E g 1.4 1.25 Ak k comer (FE) m ids id e( FE) I 0.2 0.16).8 L.4 0.6 0.5 1.75 I I 2 AV 2.

The values of k calculated from the finite element results have a smoother distribution down the bin than for the experimentwhich shows local peaks. the midside values predicted by the finite element method are lower than those values obtained from the experiment. However. 8. 8. The gravel material again shows good correlation of the average values compared k.1 given as The equation is 133 . the k valuesat the midside show agreementwithin 15% of each other. will a coefficient below. the corner values of k for sand are well matched. The the the of employed value other and with local values of k are somewhatmore erratic.k by Eurocode (ENV 1991-4. Rotter et al (2002) proposed an empirical model to determine the pressure distribution across the level. These observed patterns show that the prediction of the correct value of k and hence the stress state in the solid is difficult to achieve at all points in the bin.3 Predictive law for wall normal pressures Based upon the experimental measurements of Lahlouh et al (1995). systematically much However. This based in two at a given silo parameter planform square model was a wall fit data least is to the the experimental and squares resulting a equation a upon hyperbolic function based upon the mean pressure and some coefficient a. different for In local Eurocode this the of material a pattern of value results with in is k in Here k the the to those the seen sand observed. pressure peaks particular comer or some other phenomena). In the sand material. This be referred to as the redistribution parameter.1995). The averagefinite elementvalue is within 10% of the averageexperimentalvalue. It may therefore be necessary to adapt the model dependent on which phenomena are of large (the interest in the the the wall pressures at midside. value of compared valuesof is larger in from than that the experimental results much observed calculated corner finite element model.

is taken as Rotter et al's (2002) suggested value of 2.1) from is horizontal distance the the centreline of the is the mean wall pressure. can calculatedand compared 8.5 shows the experimentally determined distribution of wall normal pressure distribution. 2002) but as this has been shown to compare well with the Janssen in design being for if be the taken used analysis.3. of pressure an of redistribution give structural Figure 8.P=" saa ()2 cosh d (8. implies This for 2. ratio mid-side width of silo and based deduced for (2002) Rotter that tests is the on et al the silo given as cosh a. sand this were a model could value. The in levels the calculated mean corresponding and sand at two from data in (given is the (pm) the taken experimental as average pressure pressure Rotter et al. be to the distributions measured thesevalues.5. These are compared with the experimental be by in the that the could used original paper guidancevalues given results to show idea the designers the to on wall.5 the value gravel was about and sandthe value of a was about that sandshowsa higher level of redistribution across the bin wall than gravel.x pm in The d is to the the the of comer pressure silo side. 134 . 2. Using data.1 Comparison to experimental results in sand From the values given by Rotter et al (2002) wall normal pressure distributions can be determinedat any depth in the silo.

Figure 8. 2002) rather than depth from surface of fill.75 Figure 8. 135 .2m depth. predicted 2m depth.45 of bin (m) 0. 2002). As before. exercise using squares method was performed and varying a between the experimental and predictive data for sand. (taken from Rotter et al.3 Distance from corner 0.5. the centre of the bin are underestimated trend in the initial The values of wall normal pressure at law (similar to the observed by the predictive finite element results) and using the suggested value of a also being underestimated.6 0. experimental -. the results are shown as a function of depth from the top of the silo as per the original paper (Rotter et al. in the corner pressure predictions results It must be noted that these distributions were generated using the suggested value of a=2.Wall pressure distributions from sand experiments and predictive law Figure 8.25 -s1m 20 -*-1 15 depth. ý-.6 shows the values least by Janssen distribution the for to the squares method compared produced of pm integrated data is For the experimental also plotted on this graph comparison sand.1) are of a in large form to those the observed experiment a pressure near the corner with similar of the bin and lower pressures at the midside.5 . predicted m depth. A better fit of the predictions to the experimental data could be achieved by fitting least A the pm.15 0. experimental 10 0 0 0.5 shows that the results from the predictive law (equation 8.

6 .Best fit mean pressures in sand The values of pm given by the best fit exercise are systematically around 20% higher than those determined from the original integration of the experimental data although the Janssen form of distribution remains. This may due to the experimental results first data is directly full (the in the the the across point not way wall not extending integration in Rotter (2002) In to the the perform order paper et al assumed corner).7 shows the best fit distribution in sand of the redistribution parameter a down the depth of the bin. that the corner value was the same as that measured 0. 136 . Figure 8.5 IS ä 2 2.0 Janssen distribution 0. The in law the very corner of the bin.5 02468 Wall normal 10 pressure 12 (kPa) 14 16 18 Figure 8.05m from the wall.5 oA oi +Experimental Best fä Pm 1 0 CL 0 Q 1. gives a value of normal pressure wall predictive This value will be higher than that assumed in the original integration leading to an increase in the area under the curve compared to the original data and hence a larger pressure.

determined from best fit the a as exercise at these two levels are and values of pm Janssen below the appropriate along with wall normal pressure value for this given depth for comparison. Using the values of a and p.5lkPa) 137 . This deviation by boundary be to the these end effects caused attributed conditions.5 1 1.The variation of the parameter a with depth in sand in the geometry of Lahlouh et al (1995) Figure 8. It would be can deeper in determine to to a silo order study whether a remains stable for a necessary larger portion of the bin (Chapter 9).5 determined.5 over a large percentage of the bin wall.5 Q 1 CL 0 1.5 i" 02 Best fi to experimental dat 2. " Im depth.0 0.5 3 Figure 8. a=2.81kPa (Janssen pressure= 4. away from this value nearer the surface and towards the transition.7 . for sand was It deviates a is close to 2.05 and pm= 5.8 different levels Figure this in the sand. The two shows comparison at values. determined from the best fit exercise it is again possible to compare the predicted pressure distributions across the wall with the experimental 8.5 CoeffiCierd d 2 2.7 clearly shows how the original recommendation of a=2.5 0 0.

8. 1995) The predictive law now shows a value of pressure at the corner of the bin that is determined form The law does the the to value. de pth ex experimer*al erimer*al p ." 2m depth.6 0.3.26kPa) 25 +1m 20 1 depth.45 of bin (m) 0. of experimentally predictive closer data bin the is the the a curve as experimental sharp corner as as of show not Again lower the the than those pressures predicted at midside are much approached. 15 a 10 -- 5- 0 0 0.Predicted distribution experimental resulting from best fit value of a compared to original data for sand (Lahlouh et al. experimertal 2m depth. 138 . This because better those than may at of a possible end effect appear visually is Due beam in to the the experimental rig transition/hopper the approached. predicted 2m depth.75 Figure 8. a=2. Figure 8. agreement results would shown be 2m. between for The Im depth in the the experiment.8 . predicted -= -experimental -1 m depth.15 0.2 Comparison to experimental results in gravel A similar exercise to the one above was performed on the data for gravel.3 Distance from corner 0.43 and pm= 8. Rotter et (2002) predicted a value of a=2 al for this material. ring as the transition has a higher local stiffness than the rest of the bin which affects the distribution across the bin at this level.9 shows the law for data depths to the two predictive compared using the value of a experimental = 2.77kPa(Janssen pressure= 8.

Wall pressure distributions from gravel experiments and predictive law The large peak at the corner seen in the experiment is not reproduced by the form law is the the the using suggested value of a and overall of prediction predictive not as curved as the experimental results. experimental - 20 15 R 10 5 0 0 0.45 40 + lm depth.45 of bin (m) 0.p .6 0. predicted 2m de de p th 2m th redicted redicted .9 . experimental T 35 30 25 -ý 2m dept h. underestimate design from for a point of view reasons already mentioned. values original 139 . However.3 Distance from corner 0. the predictive law does not This is it did for the the the pressures at midside as sand.15 0.p -1 m depth.10 shows the best fit values of pm against the Janssen distribution and the for integrated gravel. advantageous Figure 8.75 Figure 8.

0 _E1.5 1 1.10 .11 .The variation of the parameter a with depth in gravel in the geometry of Lahlouh et al (1995) 140 .5 Figure 8.0 Janssen distribution 0.11 shows the corresponding best fit values of a. the values are closer to the systematically but down depth bin.5 -a Best fit to experin ental data a2 2.Best fit values of pm against experimental data and Janssen distribution In this case the values of pm produced by the best fit exercise do not produce the in for higher the seen results results sand.5 3 3.5 05 10 WaN normal pressure 15 (kPa) 20 25 Figure 8.5 0 0. the the average with some variation of original experimental Figure 8.5 3ýý IS S 11.5 + f Experimental Best fit pm in 2 2.5 CoeffIcetnt 2 n 2.

3 Distance from 0. a=7. experimental 5 0 0 0. It was originally suggested that the approximate in be the order of a=2 should value very much greater than this. figure 8.98kPa) 45 " 40 R 35 4. Ju 25 20 15 10 1 +1m -uf depth. experimental form seen in the sand and visually this compares well with the experimental observations. predicted 2m depth. 1995) The large value of a gives a prediction near the wall that is very close to the form is The the prediction of also much more curved than the value.7 0.8 Figure 8.21kPa (Janssen pressure= 4.84 and pm= 9.5 of bin (m) 0. experimental 2m depth.The best fit to the gravel results produces very different values of a to those suggested by Rotter et al (2002).72 and pm= 5. are: values using n.2 0.11 shows that the best fit values are This is attributable to the least squares method favouring the fit where the values are higher. Finally. 9 " Im depth. but figure 8. substantially measured of centre 141 .1 0.6 0.Predicted distribution experimental resulting from best fit value of a compared to original data for gravel (Lahlouh et al. This necessitates the value of a to be high in order to produce the large curvature towards the corner of the bin.18kPa (Janssen pressure= 8. predicted 1m depth. The high value of a causes the values of pressure predicted at the lower be bin in than those to the the experiment.12 shows the fit of the predictive law to the experimental data at two levels These fit best the values of a and p.74kPa) 2m depth.4 corner 0. a=5.12 .

5 0 0. Rotter et al's (2002) predictive law will be compared with the finite element results.14 show the variation of a in the two materials down the depth of the bin compared to the variation of a from the experimental work.13 .13 and 8. s CL 2 Es w 02 1.4 Comparison with finite element results Using the previously described finite element model of Lahlouh et al's (1995) for the wall pressures have been produced using the work. predictions experimental two different ensiled materials.5 ý- Best fit to experimentaldata Best fit to FE IL in il 2.5 Coefficient 2 a 2.6. The pressure distribution across the wall compared to the experimental data has already been examined in section 6. A similar least squares best fit exercise to the one above was performed to fit the finite law This to the element results. 0 .6. the experimental compared with Figures 8.Comparison of a determined from finite element method and experiment in sand 142 .8.5 for gravel.5 3 3.5 1 1.5 Figure 8.ýo.3 for sand and 6. gives values of a and pmthat may be predictive data. Here.

5 3 3. measured pressures can extremely variable. studied properties Figure 8.15 shows the wall normal pressures in sand determined by finite element fit bin. suggested also the transition where a increases and then reduces to 0 at the level of the transition.14 .5 2 Coefficeint a 2.5 0 0.5 same are might is finite There for be the a noticeable effect towards element results. also 143 .5 c 2 2. shows gravel in but to that the the values are a similar pattern seen sand shows values element slightly higher.5 E ö ö1 a 0 YC G Best fit to experimental data Best fit to FE -m 0 1.5 1 1. The comparison between the finite element results and the experimental best fit in is large difference in the The finite there that a values of a obtained.Comparison of a determined from finite element method and experiment in gravel For the sand material the maximum values obtained from the finite element model An in the the as experimental region work.0 . overall value of a=2.f0.5 4 Figure 8. best in The levels law the is the to two these of predictive results at analysis The values of a and pm were: shown. The erratic nature of the experimental values of a makes but draw has hard that though this to even shows material very similar comparisons be the the to sand. This effect is caused by end effects in the model of the type studied in Chapter 7 and the reduction of a to 0 indicates there is no redistribution of pressure at the transition level.

a=2. the experimental finite by the element model. It shows that the predictive law proposed could be used as an effective design tool given different It be for geometries. the the the of predictive centre pressure at 8.28 and pm= 7. a=3.Comparison between FEA results and predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) The predictive law shows a very similar form of distribution to the finite element results.2m depth t15 10 0 0 0.3 Distance from corner 0.15 0. 2m depth .15 . 1 m depth -ate Predictive.26kPa) 30 25 ý-FEA.6 0. 1 m depth ä '0 -ý 20 -- FEA.9 " lm depth.45 of bin (m) 0.08kPa(Janssen pressure= 8.5 Summary The work presented above revisits the work done by Rotter et al (2002).75 Figure 8. materials and may necessary to make some a of values dependant feature the in the bin is the of of a choice value on on which compromise being studied.Predictive. This is important for the calculation of the bending moments as under-estimation of the wall normal 144 .42kPa(Janssen pressure= 4. Most of the values of a that have been calculated from best fit the the determined to tend those pressure at underestimate centre while exercises from the experimental results underestimate the corner pressure. The values from the predictive law across the bin are within 5% of those At the 2m depth however. given in towards the corner rapidly resulting rises an underestimation of the pressure bin by law.52 and pm= 4.51kPa) 2m depth.

16 shows the average wall normal pressure down the depth of the silo as distribution. 8.5 f a 0 2 2.Comparison to Janssen distribution in wheat 145 .5 012345678 Integrated wall normal pressure (kPa) Figure 8.16 . pressure Therefore it may be more useful to adopt a conservative value of approximately 2 for by (2002). 0 Janssen distribution -E 0 0.. assume a relatively under wheat material and gravel less stiff.6. Janssen the appropriate well as Also shown are the best fit values of pn.6 Finite element predictions for an idealised wheat The experimental geometry is now modelled as filled with a wheat whose parameters in in 6. so low is to stiff state pressures.lead being designed insufficient to the midside could walls with at strength. This Chapter determined the original work of was material not used were Lahlouh et al (1995) and has very different characteristics to the sand and pea gravel density have lower bulk has It far tests and while a much shown the sand studied. much 8.5 ý- Finite element results Best fit Au 0 CL 0 E 1. but would ensure that walls are not under-designed.1 Comparison to Janssen distribution Figure 8. Rotter et al suggested a as following those to produced compared This would lead to more efficient designs guides based upon uniform pressure distribution across the wall.

approximately normal pressures The finite element predictions would but due be towards to the nature of the wheat material tending to an asymptote appear the depth required to develop this is much greater than the depth of bin studied here (see Chapter 9 for deeper silos). 7 6 R $$ -+-fFEA.45 of bin (m) 0. 2m depth CL °c 2 a I 31 0 0 0.6. 1m depth FEA.2 Distribution of pressure across the wall Figure 8.17 .6 0. The previously observed end effects due in to the softer nature of the stored material. 146 . this model reduced much are also 8.17 shows the distribution of wall normal pressure across the wall at 1m and 2m below the top of the silo determined from the finite element model.15 0.In this material the finite element predictions systematically underestimate the wall by 0.5kPa.3 Distance from corner 0.75 Figure 8.Wall normal pressure distribution across the wall in wheat With this softer material the amount of redistribution across the wall is less than that be due by to the the expected would or gravel as sand relative stiffness shown between the wall and the solid being much reduced. The results still show some bin the the near corner pressure peak of a which reduces to a with redistribution minimum at the midside position. The best fit values of pm are very close to the integrated values from the finite element model.

The in is in the the solid reflected stress of observed wall normal pressures redistribution (figure 8.90 Figure 8.18 shows the patterns of vertical stress in the ensiled material.10 5.17).60 4.19 shows the average and local values of k calculated from the finite element model. 1m from surface of fill 5.4 Average and local values of k in the solid Figure 8. 147 .18 .00 3.20 4. value of much vertical stress magnitude bin This from to the the the the near midside compared of wall.70 4.Pattern of vertical stress in wheat 1m from the surface of the solid These patterns are similar in form to those observed in the sand and gravel but the is larger internal Again. of arises corner near the stored material spanning between the stiff corners as detailed in figure 8.6. 8. is there a reduced.1.6.80 4.8.40 4.30 4.90 N t 4.10 4.00 4.50 4.3 Patterns of vertical stress in the solid Figure 8.

k This the value about with compared compares of value favourably with the values found in the previous materials.2 0.5 comer (FE) midside (FE) active -Rankine ENV 1991-4 -- I ' 1.6 0.0 0.75 2 2.5 0.8 Figure 8.5 0. the midside the value of at This is because the material at the midside is failing where the wall deforms outwards by is the the stiff structural elements. As would be expected is lower k than the average value and at the corner.75 0 0 CL E 1.1 0.5.25 I ý 2.25 i _Average mk Ak k (FE) I ä 1. confined corner near material and 148 .7 0. 0 III1III 0.3 0. higher. The average is Eurocode 10% lower.19 .4 k 0.25 i 0.Local and average values of k in wheat The wheat material shows similar trends to the sand and gravel models.

20 showsthe distribution of the parametera down the depth of the bin. 0 I0.6 0.5 0 0.6 Figure 8. This anomaly occurs because of the very low stresses in the solid at this point and therefore any small changes in the from finite (such the a rounding error element software) cause a large as stresses change in the value of k. lighter material exhibiting smaller values of a compared to the sand (or gravel) is not form distribution down bin The differs from the of that of a observed unexpected.4 0. 8. This is due to the relative stiffness between the material and the wall 149 . The is affected by the deformation of the wall and therefore this softer.2 1.It may also be noted that the value of k corner at the surface of the solid is substantially smaller than the Rankine active ratio.4 1.5 Comparison with predictive law The best fit values of pm were shown in figure 8. Figure 8. in is increase by in that there the and gravel sand no a towards the exhibited transition.6. This indicates that there is less redistribution redistribution of the pressure in this case.8 Coefficient a 1 1.5 2 2.5 ý- Best fi to FE CL "" E w 1.16. These are systematically lower than the pressure predicted by Janssen as is the integrated pressure across the wall.20 -a determined from finite element method in wheat The value of a is lower for this soft material than it is for the stiffer sand and gravel.2 0.

Comparison of pressures across the wall from finite element model and predictive law in wheat Again.15 0.3 Distance from corner 0.6 0. this shows that the predictive law and the finite element method provide being 5% bin. the results from the finite element model are compared to the predictive law from determined best fit The levels. were used element 150 . 2m depth 51 0 0 0.45 of bin (m) 0. a=1. the obtained 8.37 2m depth. 1 m depth Predictive. 2m depth Predictive.72kPa) and pm = 4.26kPa (Janssen pressure = 2. a=1. 1m depth FEA.7 Summary The experimental geometry of Lahlouh et al (1995) has been modelled with the finite for have been Results the two in that obtained materials method.36kPa (Janssen pressure = 4. Finally. It however the within across with agreement may results comparable be noted that this comparison merely shows that the predictive law can reproduce the distribution determinedfrom the finite element analysis.0_ -----*FEA. It gives no indication about from form an experimentalstudy.73kPa) 7 -u-0 $ .05 and pm = 2. the two pm and a of exercisewere: values at " " lm depth.21 .being much lower and therefore any extra stiffening effect at the transition has no measurableeffect on the value of a.75 Figure 8.

1990). Patternsand trends observedin the experiment and model in but lower levels this the are repeated material and gravel sand of of pressure lower due the to stiffness of the wheat. The finite element method cannot however reproducethe random features in the stored solid causedby filling (for example). The finite element analysis has shown internal in distributions the solid. The predictive law has also been compared to the finite element analysis and been shown to provide results that in form distribution. are noted redistribution 151 . a material that was not part of the original testing programme (wheat) has been modelled in the same geometry.the experiment and comparisons drawn. terms the the of each other with of are consistent Finally. to be important in their effect on the wall normal pressures The predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) has been introduced and the work from the in law to that the order show extended and predictive can reproduce revisited paper the pressure distributions shown in experimental work. Thesefeatureshave been shown (Ooi et al. k values and wall normal of stress comparable pressures. This material was chosen due to its very different characteristics.

1 Introduction This section of the thesis aims to use the finite element model described above (Chapter6) to study the effect of severalfactors on the wall pressuredistribution in a The distributions Janssen to are compared results and also to squareplanform silo. the type to of effects aims reduce any This study aims to determine the effect that these parameters have upon the is is It that a related to the relative stiffness a. equation given relationship 152 .1. The parameters that will be variedare: " " " Type of storedmaterial (Leighton Buzzard sand.5m. The first silo model will be of a 10m height and of plan dimension 1. wheat) Planformsize Wall thickness(and by extensionwall stiffness) Theseparameters are varied to predict pressuredistributions and the factors that are critical to their assessment. Ooi and Rotter (1990) showed that the between have the the solid wall and stored could an effect on stiffness relative in A for silo.5m square. Results are presentedfor parametric variations of the square silo. Rotter et al's (2002) predictive law describedin Chapter 8 to determine whether this law can be usedfor more generalpredictive work in silo design. This height is chosen in order to make the silo sufficiently deep to allow the Janssen length is develop 1. this cylindrical parameter a was proposed pressures observed by 9.Chapter 9.Parametric study of a square planform silo 9. The use of this boundary condition in discussed Chapter 7. base The is to the wall when pressure modelled asymptotic 45° hopper (consistent having approximately wall of angle concentric a with the as definition of hopper angle given in Chapter 7). pea gravel. predicted redistribution parameter betweenthe silo wall and the stored solid.

wall in bin this 9. cases work presented where section is deformation small. Further investigation showed that when deformations defined large (as be thumb. (Ut)3.2. for limited below but to the 9. by is equation rigidity given Eta D-121-v2ý (9.5m The bin deep the 10m as used previously square). The plate flexural 9. (equation results 153 .1 the Figure wall normal pressures average using the three stored shows is The the wall normal pressure plotted average value of p1 materials. as a rule of as w may what approach t) it becomes difficult to predict the behaviour of the stored solid and hence values of a that are determined also becomedifficult to predict.a= E5R (9.3).2 Type of stored material The three granular materials that were investigated in Chapter 6 are now modelled in (1. would more characterise parameter form of the plate flexural rigidity.1 the now. is 20mm.1) Et In the cylindrical silo however the wall needs to be thin and the stored solid rather have flexibility for in to the an effect. 9. stiff order A similar expressionmay exist for the rectangular silo although rather than using the it be likely Rh that some the to shell rigidity.2) Any relationship derived is likely to be of a higher order than the relationship given for the cylindrical bin.5. granular Rotter et al (2002) to the finite element law fitting by the of predictive obtained 9. same planform of a increased investigation however. would be incorporated. Initial to the of this wall thickness of 6mm (such leads the thin to that as used previously) very a wall showed geometry large deflections in the wall. Further investigationof this is given in is.

)K Best fit pm . appropriate pressure also plotted. noted pronounced has been disregarded because the pressure recorded is the the node end previously into hopper.gravel Janssen . the the moving node result of 154 .1 .gravel Best fit pm -w heat Janssen -w heat Figure 9. 0 E2 3 w o4 5* ýº Q. The element value and results an asymptotic finite element predictions down the bin agree with the Janssen values within the bounds of experimental error. 8 99 9--10 02468 Wall normal 10 pressure 12 (kPa) 14 16 18 6 -N -. There are noticeable end effects and these are most filled in (sand the the two As silos with stiffer solids and gravel).Wall normal pressures in deep square planform bin In this deep bin it is easy to see that at a depth the Janssendistribution tends towards finite (constant) follow the this trend.P= PC m sinh a) a 2I Icoshl `dJ (9. as The mesh density of these models is chosen in a similar manner to the method described previously for the smaller bins in order to provide the most accurate results but minimise the computational time required.3) The value of pm is used as the curved distribution of the predictive law provides a better approximation of the integrated value (assuming the function is a good fit to the data) whereas Simpson's rule assumes the points to be joined by straight lines inaccuracy lead to numerical when applied to relatively coarse data such which can distributions have Janssen been The this.sand Janssen sand Best fit pm .

Variation of a with depth in different materials As expected the value of a is fairly stable in the main section of the bin away from for 1.2 shows the value of a down the bin for the three materials as determined from the best fit to the finite element results. 0 1 2i -ý 3 n4 all 6+ 7 g 9 10 0 0.1 Relative stiffness between wall and stored solid In each of the three materials above. stiffness) and wall 155 .5 1 CoeFicent a Sand Gravel Wheat 1. The two stiffer materials exhibit an increase in the value of a towards the distribution is indicates that the affected either by the hopper or the transition which increased wall stiffness where the hopper and walls meet. different values of a occur at a given depth.65 for gravel and 0.These results have been fitted to the predictive law (Rotter et al. In it have 8. It is expected that this phenomenon is attributable to the relative stiffness between the Since (and hence the is the material and wall geometry the solid. 9.75 of sand. 2002) and therefore been determined. This describes the varying degrees of redistribution in each of the granular solids. 1. Figure 9.2. A deep bin in demonstrate a stable value of a exists whether regions away from the should boundary conditions (surface and hopper).1 section was shown that the value of a values of a for sand was fairly stable away from the surface and the transition.2 .5 2 Figure 9.45 for the ends with an approximate value wheat.3.

the stiffness is related to the stress level Therefore the results from the finite element analysis are interpreted to give a value of equivalent elastic stiffness that can be related to the The ABAQUS theory manual (2001) gives the the wall elastic stiffness of for formulae the to the porous elastic model These calculate modulus appropriate formulae can be used "in reverse" to work backwards from the stress values in the By then making the assumption that the of shear modulus. equivalent elastic constitutive model used in solids the finite elementanalysisdoes not explicitly define a stiffness. stress vertical using a level at each using the value of vertical stress performed were check. The calculation firstly requiresthe determinationof the elastic volume change in the level in is This the to the stress material and various material related material. a value give model and be determined.differences in three the the observed models above must be due to the stored same different The having stiffness'. by 9.4. is linear a value of elastic stiffness elastic can material Rather than calculate the elastic stiffness in each element (which would be extremely time consuming). Firstly. deformations occurred at this level due to the increased stiffness of the structure joint between hopper. e. a method for estimating the stiffness in each layer of elements was determined. is equation given constantsand 156 . the equivalent elastic stiffness at the transition was determined This point in the bin was used as only small lateral wall as a reference value. from the the the and walls arising The equivalent value of level was then related to the ratio of vertical stress at the at each stiffness elastic transition to the vertical stress at the point under consideration. nor can it be readily determinedbecause the constitutive law exhibits barotropy i. It was found that As a distribution for Janssen this was sufficiently accurate. calculations determined from the finite element modeL It was found that the results obtained from this method and the method using the Janssen predicted value of vertical stress for this therefore the remainder of simplified approach was used and close were very the calculations.

10 15.6.7) Using these formulae the reference value of elastic stiffness at the transition was in 9.4) The value of p (which is called the averagepressure stressin the ABAQUS manual) is given as the mean of the three directional stresses. equation 3(1-2v)(1+eo) (p+ G2(1+ v)2 (9. a may may therefore identify to to therefore investigation carried out attempt a more general Further was relationship. ýQ11-1-an+a33) (9. The table for three the results are presented materials.1 .15 0.Equivalent elastic stiffness of the three materials largest the that the 9.6) If the assumption of a linear isotropic material is made then it is possibleto directly 9.73 Table 9.5) p =-3 It is then possible to directly determine the instantaneous shear modulus using 9. calculated each of Stored material Referencevalue of elastic stiffness (MPa) Sand Gravel Wheat 18.+l P' Po In J`r= 1 (1+eo) P+1 )+l (9. 157 .7.1. to equation stiffness using elastic this an value convert E= 2G(1+ v) (9.2 exhibiting variation of pressureacross material Figure showed higher by (characterised This Buzzard the Leighton is values of sand a). the the wall highest the transition the elastic stiffness at equivalent and exhibits also material be deduced to be that it closely related solid and wall stiess.

the deformations down the centreline of the silo wall were inspected to determine whether large deflections were occurring.Normal deformations (w/t) down the centreline of the bin wall The predicted deflections in the model are small compared to the thickness of the fully in take In to this type of silo then advantage of structural savings order plate. 1981).3 .06 Figure 9.01 0. There could also be a be if The deformation is the the opposite could said on value of a.05 0.04 0.9.2. effect significant deformations down 9.03 Wall deflection (wit) 0. o 1 2 3af 4 CL 5 . 158 . This does not necessarily mean that large deformations are occurring in either the solid or the wall but as was shown in section 3.3 Figure the the the centreline of of normal wall shows small.02 0. As a check.2 Deformations in the wall The analysis performed thus far has been a large deformation analysis.r E6 7 8 9 ýSand -$-Gravel Wheat 10 0 0. the silo described above when filled with the three materials.10 the behaviour of plates can be affected even when the deformations are only approaching what may be defined as large (Ugural. the wall thickness would need to lower in order to induce some membrane tension into the plate.

An unstiffened silo wall of 20mm wall thickness will allow level of redistribution of the wall normal pressure but still be thick observable an in deflections the wall.5m pknform. The in figures (equation 9. This is an arbitrary choice based upon the observed pressures and deformations above.9. FEA 3m planform. gravel and wheat respectively. as well as the appropriate Janssen distributions.5m square and 3m square. 9.1).3.3 Planform In the previous sections the silo studied was square with a width of 1. The initial wall thickness planform sizes is chosen as 20mm. to avoid excessive enough The mesh density of the finite element model is kept the same as for the previous study.Janssen 2m plaform.5m planform. 0 1 2 3 4 5-ý -+-ý- 2m planform. Janssen E 0 6 7 8 -ý-- 3m plenform.6 for sand. The choice of 2m are square.Wall normal pressures for sand in square planform silos 159 .4of normal values wall pressure are shown model 9. Janssen 2.5m.4 . This silo will now be increased in planform but will still be maintained square. FEA 2.1 Square planform silos with 20mm thick wall The results for the three different planforms of silo are again fitted to the predictive 8. FEA 10 05 10 15 20 25 pressure 30 (kPa) 35 -f 40 45 Wall normal Figure 9. 2.

5m plenf orm. FEA 2. apparent more sand and gravel effects end observed become higher than those systematically also pressures the predicted models In the 2m planform model the finite element method Janssen.2m planform.ý 0 9 1U 0 10 20 Wall normal pressure 30 (kPa) 40 50 Figure 9. 2m planform.Wall normal pressures for gravel in square planform silos 0 1 --. not planform seen 5-7% 160 . Janssen 2. Janssen 3m FEA plenform. . by predicted higher Janssen 3-5% the This than in to the prediction.0 1 2 3 4 -f--ý2. FEA 0 7 8 " .6 .5m planform. -- 9 10 0 5 10 Wall normal pressure 15 (kPa) 20 25 Figure 9. FEA Sm planform. Janssen 2 3 45 11 6 7 11.iý- 2m pleform. Janssen -+3m plinform. Janssen 2m plaform. FEA -.5m planform.Wall normal pressures for wheat in square planform silos hence decreases) (and increases the the the length the rigidity of plate wall As the of in In become the all materials. Janssen 2. 3m planform. of order rises are predictions This is in 3m in the wheat the same higher pattern model. FEA 3m planform.5 .IR .

7).10 show the values of a for the three silos above again for sand. gravel and wheat respectively.Comparison of Janssen and FEA prediction 100mm thick wall in 3m square planform bin with It is expected that the values of a obtained from fitting the finite element predictions be higher for 9.7 . This effect is assumed to be a function of the flexibility of the silo wall.3) law (equation those silos with a larger side will the to predictive length. Consideration 3m this therefore effect of a and square planform wheat) but 100mm filled thickness sand with of wall shows that the agreement with model between the finite element results and the Janssen predictions is much improved from 20mm bin (figure 9.8-9. 161 . This is due to the decreased rigidity of the plate and since the ensiled material is the same (and should therefore assume a similar stiffness) the relative stiffness between wall and material should be reduced. the thick the to walled results compared 0 2 3 5 E6 7 8 0 9 10 05 10 15 Mall normal 20 pressure (kPa) 25 30 35 -s-aJanssen prediction Finite element prediction (100mm wall) Figure 9.finite between the the element results and Janssen is in corroboration where model the order of 2% throughout the bin for all sizes of planform. Figures 9. In the models filled with sand and gravel the pressures is higher (the in of sand and gravel mass approximately twice that of general are is increased. As the wall length increases the flexural stiffness decreases.

9 . Figure 9.5m planform R f 3m plonform 8i oe 5 6 7 8 910 01234567 Coefficient a Figure 9.8 .5m planform planfarm 6 w7 s 9 10 01234567 Coefficient . 2 E3 ö --ý -sfin 4 2m planform 2.Coefficient a for gravel in the square planform bins 162 .o 1 2 3 ti "º -ý2m plenform 2.Coefficient a for sand in the square planform bins 0 1.

maximum planform a In the sand and gravel models there is an extremely large peak in the value at the base in the 2.5m and 3m square bins. merely that up to 3m is a value there not a maximum is not evident. granular stiff are relatively in for to tend towards appear a maximum gravel value whereas and a sand value of a increases. wheat material is but bulk The (for the solids) a wheat very soft material.5 2 Figure 9. _.10 .5m planform 3m plan f orm 4 ö6 7 =E .5 1 Coefficient a 1. The sand and values of a are forms down bin the the of of variation a similar whereas the exhibit gravel models is due fact This different is to the that the sand and gravel entirely. leads This large the to the the meet walls observed where area stiff structural values of a. high being due in the to the presence of the due is the to very corner This pressure hopper.Coefficient a for wheat in the square planform bins higher for longer the silos with As expected sides. 163 .11 of wall pressure sand above the Figure shows level where the bin meets the hopper for 20mm thick bins of varying planform. 9 10 0 0.2m plonform 2 = M -3 °' -ý- 2. This indicates a very large amount of redistribution. distribution in just horizontal the 9. This does increasing is the planform steadily as not mean that the wheat for in the silos with wheat.

70 Table 9.74 22.Equivalent elastic stiffness in the square planform bins 164 . 9.5 Distance from of bin (m) Figure 9.47 1. of modulus.03 0.11 .45 0.2m plenform . a wall with reference equivalent elastic planform varying level E.05 1.0 28. This leads to arching of the stored material between the structurally stiff corners producing the observed lower pressures at the midpoint.2 1. ýý + 2.Distribution of pressure above the transition This figure clearly indicates that the larger models experience much higher peak bin leading in large the turn to the corner of near very values of a.2.2 .120 100 1° 80 o 40 -s -1. Planform size (m) Reference equivalent elastic modulus.10 15.3.15 0.35 1.0 18.9.2 Stiffness of ensiled material The calculations detailed in equations 9.5 2. the transition the three materials at are shown in table 9.9 1.15 19.5 3.05 1.75 corner 0.27 37.3 0.21 26.4 .73 1. E (MPa) Sand Gravel Wheat 1. A large pressures load is by length increases because the the the corners carried as of wall percentage the hopper/wall junction becomes less stiff at the midpoint.5m planform -m.5m planform 3m planform 20 0 0 0.6 0.18 2.7 were again performed for the bins of 20mm The thickness.10 23.

may ensiled what between length is linear the the elastic stiffness and wall the until the that relationship bin experiences large deflections at which point the possible effect on equivalent difficult becomes The be drawn to predict.Table 9. 40 35 1e 30 25 20 iS 15 10 ý W Sand LL . and and in large is there present end effect someof these bins. the stress state of the solid.5 2 Length 2. Inspection of the wall deformations shows that the 3m bin experiences large deflections (w>0.12 shows the length between the of the silo wall and the calculated equivalent elastic relationship stiffness for the three stored materials. conclusion might also stiffness elastic is by large deformation the the material affected of elastic stiffness that the equivalent be because it is known interaction This to that the correct assumed was the wall.12 .GCQV6I 0 1 1. Therefore in a As noted earlier between length the it is the the wall and to relationship value of study a order 165 .2 shows that for the same granular material.5t) at this 20mm wall thickness (no matter is bins do It be the modelled as) whereas smaller the material not.5 Figure 9. of between the wall and the solid has a direct effect on the observed wall pressures (Ooi by extension.5 of wail (m) 3 3. 1990) Rotter.Relationship between wall length and elastic stiffness of stored material The relationships for all three materials are almost linear apart from the 3m wall length bin when filled with sand. Figure 9. the equivalent elastic stiffness deduced from the results changes with the planform size.

5 of wall (m) 3 3.13 .5 Sand Gravel Wheat -f. This is is 6m chosen reachedbefore the end effects chosen become apparent but it is also deep enough in the silo to allow the Janssen developed. could of wall geometry 9.5 1 0. may wall a of value large deflections larger to models since create will occur which appears to possible interfere with the trends noted so far.5 0 1 1. It would therefore be advantageous to incorporate a study into the relationship between t and a.ý-ý Figure 9.5 2 Length 2. the At (20mm) it towards is not tend this thickness an asymptote.13 shows the relationship between the value a at 6m depth and the length of the wall.4 Wall thickness In order to investigate the effect of the wall thickness.5 2 V t 1.is bin from that the theseend effects. The two studies could then be combined and enable many cases to be examined since a dimensionless measure formulated be with which to compare the value of a. 3. be to almost equilibrium Figure 9. The level to area of away study some necessary depth is because it depth.5 3 2.Relationship between wall length and a This figure appears to indicate that rather than exhibiting direct proportionality. a number of tests were before (1.5m the small as geometry square planform) but with using performed 166 .

the finite element results in law (equation 9.20.5m square planform with varying wall thickness (sand fill) bin 167 . Section 9.2 20mm The this thickness model section and used was wall versa. any oft value wall pressure at a given 0 1 2 3 4 15 = -Janssen -t=100mm t-30mm -ý t=20mm --*-t=15mm - 6 T -4 -t=10mm 9 10 05 10 Wall normal pressure 15 (kPa) 20 25 Figure 9.2 showed that the relative stiffness between the level had but it the the the of redistribution effect on across an solid silo wall and wall direct between identify these parameters. If the to relationship a was not possible decrease increased for is the then thickness should redistribution a given solid wall for in 9.16 shows that there is almost indiscernible variation in the average in for level the three materials.increasing values of t. The choice of wall thicknesses used is arbitrary.Average normal wall pressures down the depth of a 1. As before. and vice in this section results are present for wall thicknesses of 10.30 and 100mm. were Figures 9.14 ..14-9.3.15.3) for fitted to the to order obtain values predictive p. and a..

16 .19 law the of a at all points values gives predictive for all the wall thickness' in the three materials.17-9.5m square planform varying wall thickness (wheat fill) bin with There are again some end effects as the transition of the bin is approached which are is bin Fitting thin.Average normal wall pressures down the depth of a 1.t-15mm t-10rt m -+- Figure 9.5m square planform varying wall thickness (gravel fill) bin with 0 1 2 3 4 `mot 56 7 8 9 10 02468 Wall normal pressure (kPa) 10 12 14 -Janssen -f--ý -'= t-100mm t-30rrm t-20mm -.Average normal wall pressures down the depth of a 1. Figures 9.0 1 2 -Janssen -t=100 mm 3 4 t=30mm t =20mm t=15mm t=10mm 6 7 8 9 10 05 10 Wall normal 15 pressure 20 (kPa) 25 30 Figure 9. the these wall very when results to the pronounced more down bin wall. distribution of a the show 168 .15 .

ý: 8 - 4k 9 10 0 0.18 .5 2 Coefficient a 2.variation of OG wun tiepin in Wins UI varying wau LU1cKH SS kSUHUJ 0x x' 4` .Variation of a with depth in bins of varying wall thickness (gravel) 169 .Figure 9.ý- t=100mm t=30mm 2 3 -11 4 t=20mm t=15mm t=10mm E7 .5 1 1.5 3 3.1-/ .5 4 Figure 9.

8 a 1 1. The stiffness of the stored solid was again calculated.55 14.Variation of a with depth in bins of varying wall thickness (wheat) For the three materials the value of a increases in general as the wall becomes thinner. This was shown to affect the different bins in Table 9.48 18.5).87 Wheat 0.73 0.57 14.42 0.69 0.Equivalent elastic stiffness with varying wall thickness 170 .6 Coefficient 0.10 18.4 Figure 9. Equivalent elastic stiffness (MPa) t 10 Sand 17. a appears to tend towards a maximum value as the wall becomes extremely thin whereas the value of a is still increasing in the models filled with wheat.19 .89 0.2 0.72 Table 9.95 15 20 30 17. stiffness elastic equivalent from finite Those in the element the results.04 Gravel 13.4 0.65 15.72 100 17.t =30 ---t=20mm -t=20mm 4k t-1 -t=15mm f' 9 = -*- t=10mm 10 0 0.2 1. For sand and gravel.3 . calculated numbers stiffness shows italics indicate if large deformations are observed in the wall of the model (w/t > 0. It is expected that this would be equal in all bins unless large deflections occur.0 3 ` 4 5 E e 6 7 s' °' t=100mm -^-^-t=100mm 90mm .15 15.3 tests the on of planforms.

the surface of solid wall with at a of variation 3 + 2.5 m tl 2 Sand Gravel -r-Wheat 1. Figure 9. there would appearto be a reduction in stiffness. 1984) Again. the 6m depth in the bin is studied in order to determine whether there is a relationship between the wall thickness and the value of a. As the wall thickness increases the is decreases. When the bin wall becomes very thick (100mm). The wheat material shows the opposite pattern. As t increases the value of a rapidly decreases and at t=30mm the When is t=100mm the reduced.5 0 0 20 40 60 Wen thickness (mm) 80 100 120 Figure 9.In the sand and the gravel as the thickness of the bin wall increases there is a slight increase in the stiffness of the solid.Variation of a at 6m depth with wall thickness first the point on the graph (t=10mm) might be In the sand and gravel materials ignored as there is the possibility that this result has been affected by the observed large deformation.20 . but This the values the material extremely material soft stiffness of by in Ooi (1990) those the as order of magnitude given same who are calculated in 0.6MPa (after Hartlen the of a small silo as elastic stiffness wheat equivalent gives et al. value approaches zero and greatly redistribution figure is This implies there that no redistribution. shows that there is likely therefore 171 .20 shows the beneath 6m the the thickness.

).21 shows this parameter against a for sand. wall considered to be made equivalent could from strips of unit width then the stiffnessof each strip is related to L3/t3. 3 2.Comparison of (Ea/E. 9.5 Relative stiffness of silo wall and ensiled material It was suggestedin section 9. gravel and wheat 172 .5 0 0 50 100 150 200 (E.8.5 2-t3 1. (L3/t3) with a in sand.to be a point where the advantage of decreasingthe wall thickness reachesa limit as the maximum amountof redistributionis alreadyreached. a form of the ratio L/t for flat is If be the the measure plates.L3 Ewt3 (9.8) Figure 9. the the and contents silo wall may estimated equation stiffness E. The results is by that the the relative stiffness of the value of a affected presentedabove show for therefore the the relative the and solid proposed parameter stored wall and from be between 9. gravel and wheat. /E J. Large deflection casesare ignored.5 Sand fill III nd -A-Sa 1 fill -f-Gravel avel flA -f-Gr -*-Wheat heat fil -S-W 0. (L3/t) 250 300 350 400 Figure 911 .1 that in the same way that the ratio R/t had been identified as a measureof the stiffness of a cylindrical silo.

21 but with two large deformation casesadded. low to the values of solid.7 be taken about and wheat as might 9.5 ts 0.8. a decreasein wall thickness or a combination of both. that shown when a e..5.Effect of large deformations on the value of a 173 . small classified as is the the the of a and on value stiffness of solid. Figure 9. 2. stiffness extremely The figure shows that an asymptotic situation is approached as the value of the increase in increase increases. because the t3 using when wheat material of of the gravel) and with sand lead Large L/t large delfections.22 .5 2 1. An EL3/EWt3 the this value of signifies an parameter in the wall length.5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 (L'n) (EJEJ. The for be 2. for the to the gravel value sand appears around of a value asymptotic 1.5).22 shows the results for sand from figure 9. there effect a significant occurs Figure 9. Theseare indicatedby the squaredata markers.3.It is not easyto create "small deflection" models that lead to high values (comparable ESL3/E.. w/t<0.1 Effect of large deformations in the wall The cases studied above have been concerned with those deformations that are has been large deflection It (i. for 2.

Figure 9. t3 has increasedsubstantially. the value of the parameter ESL3/E. due to the presence of large deformations. appeared a earlier where 9.:. could The results shown suggest that in the type of bin modelled above the level of increase does significantly even though the value of the parameter not redistribution E L3/E.6 Variation of height of silo All the silos modelled in this chapter thus far have had a height of 10m. If a incorporated large deflections that the of wall and stiffness solid of relative measure it is data determined be that expected all points would sit on the samecurve. The 5m high silo is shown against results for the 10m high silo.. This indicates that the maximum value of a in large deformation casesmay exhibit a lower maximum level than the casespresented for 2.25 to towards tend sand.. Someof the height in 5m thicknesses are now modelled at wall and order to same planforms investigate whether these silos display similar trends to the deeper models.23 shows the comparison of wall normal pressures in a 1...5m planform silo. Results are shown for a fill. sand 174 . However. t3 is overestimated and therefore this graph is slightly misleading. The two casesthat experiencelarge deformations show a reduction in the value of a indicating that there is less redistribution of pressure when the deformation is large.

planform and when different Figure 9.23 . Moving down the bin the pressure deviates away from that in the 10m deep bin as the transition is reached.24 shows results for 5m and materials. deep Om l by the exhibited This pattern is also evident in the bins of different wall thickness.Comparison of results obtained in a 10m deep bin and Sm deep bin (sand fill) The pressures in the 5m deep bin are very close to those predicted in the 10m deep bin near the surface. The wall thickness is 20mm. bin. with they are modelled 1Om deep bins with 2m planform filled with wheat. This end effect is similar to that 175 .0 1 2+ ýß -a- Janssen sand 10m deep bin 5m deep bin 5 E6 7 ß 9 10 05 10 Wag normal pressure 15 (kPa) 20 25 Figure 9.

average The equivalent elastic stiffness of the materials was calculated and it was shown that highest level the showed of redistribution. 9. The wall thickness was then varied and it was found that there appearedto be a for that tended towards a was each material as the wall got maximum value of thinner. equivalent found and stiffness was calculated elastic to The be almost linearly proportional to the size of the planform no matter what the stored material was modelled as.Average wall pressures in a 2m square planform silo of different height (wheat fill) Again.24 . the stiffest material The variation of the planform size was then investigated and it was again shown that the Janssen theory was a good predictor of the pressure down the wall. 176 . planform different materials exhibit different levels of redistribution across the wall but on distribution for Janssen the well with compare pressures down the bin wall.0 1 23 v4 -Janssen wheat --10m deep bin 5m deep bin 5 E6 7 8 9 10 02468 Wall normal pressure 10 (kPa) 12 14 16 Figure 9.7 Summary The work presented above has investigated a number of variations in a square The first stored material modelled was altered and this showed that silo. a similar pattern of results is observed.

All of these parameterswere then combinedto give an overall parameterthat allowed This different silo showed that there does appear to be a models. of comparison for a eachgranularmaterial. maximum value of 177 .

Lahlouh et al (1995) and Rotter et al (2002) have shown that the in is In distribution the a square silo non-uniform. When using sheet metal that is of such a thin gauge. The is is 1. 10. welding or deformations local It has been fixing the near cause corners. The is 1.1 shows an overall view of the silo rig. This method was chosenas it was felt that other techniqueswould have a detrimental effect upon the quality of the internal walls.1 Silo geometry and construction The silo studied is a Im square plan-form and is constructed with a flat base.Experimental investigation of a very thin-walled square silo Jarrett et al (1995). There is some staining visible on the front face of wall as a result of the metal sheets getting damp during delivery. chapters if is that the then to the show of used wall structure madevery elementanalysiswas thin then the membranestiffness of the plate supports some of the load and large deflections can safely occur without permanent deformation of the silo structure. could mechanical (1997) defects She by Ooi by that to very are sensitive silos geometric and and shown be this type would effects of reduced whilst still retaining any using adhesive joints.6mm. Tests in in the performed were on a range of strength adhesives sufficient determine they were of suitable strength to support the walls. In investigate further this phenomenon an experiment was performed using a to order filled by type the of thin silo with pea gravel same used steel walled model very Lahlouh et al (1995). 178 .5m height the thickness the wall and silo silo of overall flat frame from 5mm that thick section supports wall panels steel angle a constructed that are joined to the frame using epoxy adhesive. However. across wall previous pressure by finite been finite fact has The this corroborated element analysis. to whether order Figure 10.Chapter 10 . the sheetswere mounted in such a way as to ensurethe internal faceswere free from this type of defect.

2.Internal view of the filler box showing discharge holes 179 .2 .Overall view of the experimental silo structure Filling and emptying are by means of an aero-mechanical conveyer. R. This box be a and places can seen at the top of material stored figure 10.1 and an internal view is shown in figure 10.WT' C.1 . Figure 10. This takes it filler into box. l `3A 1-j.. SA: I Figure 10. W.

3 . allowed material conveyor. a shearing experience Samples were prepared by bonding two strips of mild steel with a joint surface area 180 .The chute and conveyor for emptying the experimental silo rig 10. Into this frame is mounted flat metal frame by adhesive. This process aims to give a level and evenly distributed fill. back the from the storage and silo away Figure 10.1.1 Adhesive tests The frame of the silo is welded together. This experiment does not intend to measure emptying pressures and therefore the only consideration for this flap was that the silo could be emptied quickly in order to speed up the 10.The purpose of this box is to produce as even and repeatable fill as possible in the be holes The shut off and then granular material placed in the box via the may silo. silo process shallower The silo is emptied by means of a large flap in the base of the silo. replicated this action. is discharge from filler This box into to then the the silo. As the silo is filled the deflection of the wall will cause the adhesive joint to The tests therefore performed action. experimental into hopper. determine in this to method would provide enough whether order adhesives of range strength. Tests were carried out on a to the These attached are panels.3 Figure shows the chute and conveyor that takes material process. As the filler box is much be the than the must repeated several times until the silo is full.

from away coming wall 10.332 4.137 2.204 The Loctite brand cynoacrylategives the strongestbond in thesetests. occurred.848 3. the for the quantitiesrequired and it disadvantageto this is that it prohibitively expensive has a limited storage life. rectangular of order extremely is in distribution by finite the the experimental silo as the predicted pressure whether if be be ideal it directly. These then mounted an Instron 8500 seriesmachineand loaded were of failure Table 10.053 Loctite 4080cynoacrylate Araldite 2013 Araldite 2014 Table 10. the wall pressures could measured would element model However.1 showsthe resultsof this seriesof tests. until Adhesive type Araldite epoxy (type availablein DIY shops) Araldite rapid (type availablein DIY shops) Devcon 2 tonne epoxy Maximum load (kN) 5. This section allows the walls to move but in the event of a failure will prevent the from the model completely.1m2 and by extrapolating the above results it was determinedthat the chosen epoxy would have sufficient reservesof strength to support the entire massof ensiled solid with is frame tied together the top the As of with angle section. However.928 7.in 625mm2.Results from shear tests of different adhesives 9. (it is for two be time a part epoxy) and provides sufficient a considerable stored can is bonded (which It for that the was estimated one wall along silo model strength three sides) would have an adhesivecontact surfacearea of approximately0. measure safety a ease.2 Instrumentation of wall normal pressures in The current work is concerned with the measurement bending determine be to because these therefore moments used and can are silos design In for determine important the to steel silos. The Araldite 2014 however is availablein large quantities.1 . this may not be possible for reasons discussed below and it may be 181 .

Unfortunately this would give little information about the state of Small changes in the wall deflections could stress in the wall or the stored solid.4 under normal Figure - loading conditions 182 . m1 0 0 0.1 Deflections of the wall Normal deflections of the wall could be measured and these compared to the finite element model.in infer to to the pressure distribution order other measurements necessary make behind the wall.75 corner of bin (m) from FEA deflections different Wall calculated 10.3 Distance from -+- Hydrostdic pressure Results from model fled wth send 0.4 height) Figure the the shows across wall an arbitrary pressure. It also shows the same distribution. be hydrostatic It to can pressure seen that a silo geometry subjected is different distribution is little the there the on now radically wall pressure although difference in the deflected form and hence it would be difficult to infer any information about the pressures on the wall and the stress state in the solid.15 0.6 0.45 0. 6 5 3 2ff Jam. result in large changes in the stress state of the stored solid (and hence the wall be difficult deduce information by it to therefore much normal pressures) and would studying this alone.2. Possible methods that could be used are discussed below. taken from the finite element analysis performed previously. If the silo used by Lahlouh et al (1995) is considered it can be shown using finite form is deflected that the not too sensitive to the wall normal element analysis deflections (at 10. 10.

There are two options available for directly measuring these pressures. However.3 Wall normal pressures Obviously to directly measure the wall normal pressures in the silo would be the ideal case. 10. Figure 10. being shells of revolution.5 showsthe principlesof operation of this type of cell. 183 . These are measurement by a cell placed in the wall or by a free field cell A brief discussion of the principles placed in the granular solid adjacent to the wall. Chenet al. In the current casethis is obviously not so theseassumptions based be design Askegaard's upon may not as reliable as those cell and any previously tested. 10.2. The presenceof large deformations would almost certainly render this method unusable.1 Wall pressure cells Wall pressure cells for use in silo problems are usually based upon the design of Askegaard (1961). both of which are based on pressure cells of the type developed by Askegaard (1961.pressure in this cavity is then measured by a semiconducter based pressure transducer.3.g.2 Strain in the wall Someresearchers (e.2. 1996) have suggestedthat it is possibleto infer the pressurebehind a wall from strain readings taken from gaugesattachedto the exterior This method would make the instrumentation of the silo relatively simple and would not affect the pressurereadings by disturbing the continuity of the of the wall. Assumptionsare made in the designof these types of cells but they have been shown to provide reliable results with a minimum of measuring error. one of is is that the wall rigid. are radically different to the plate type structure being studied here. involved in these two types of cell follows.10. wall inside the silo. The. This designmeasuresthe pressureon the front face of the cell by transmitting this pressurethrough the face and into an oil filled cavity. However. this method makes a large number of assumptions which reduce the accuracyand has mostly been applied to circular silos which. 1978).2.

2.Principle of wall pressure cell Cells of this type are generally constructedby removing a section of the silo wall and is important into front It this. 1995. that the cell is made as the the cell of most machining stiff as possible to avoid any localised arching that may lead to erroneous pressure measurements(Askegaard.5 .2 Free field cells As an alternative to wall cells. free field cells which measurethe pressurein the solid can be used. 1998).ý¬ Pressuremeasuredfrom here P Fluid Compressiblemedium Rigid wall Figure 10. would seem 184 . Free field cells require a greater degree of "skill" when using them compared to wall cells because they can be is in the them the to material around contact. Free field cells of the type shown in figure 10. Investigation of some wall pressurecells of this type and the design of a cell for use in a thin-walled silo can be found in Appendix E.3. 1982. Askegaard and Brown. 1995). 10.6 are available for this project and ideal be the to solution. Askegaard. Gamier et al (1999) way sensitive investigated methods for the placement of free field cells and deduced that with a it is by hand to these place possible cells of practice amount and obtain certain consistent readingsbetweenexperimentalruns. These are basedupon the theory of an inclusion in an elastic medium (Eshelby (1957)) and their use has been well documented(Munch-Anderson.

rýR Ej. results may wall 10. If a large normal deflection occurs at the behind large the that then the solid wall will undergo wall a plastic of midside deformation. although measuring the wall pressure would appear to be the only reliable demonstrate the non-linear patterns of wall pressure that may exist. this type of cell is sensitive to errors induced by the packing of the bulk solid around it. This may adversely affect any cell that was placed in the bulk solid as the model silo was filled.6 . with may therefore be associated problems is distribution by infer the that non-linear to measuring pressures pressure necessary in the (relatively) stiff corner (where bending would have a minimum effect on wall be deformations free field would small reducing possible and effects on cells pressure finite law the then results and with element predictive comparing proposed cells) and by Rotter et al (2002). Free field cells could also be used near the midside of the silo be but these unreliable. As previously stated. In short.Free field cell of the type designed by Askegaard (1978) Unlike the wall cell the bending of the wall will not induce an incorrect reading in the be large deflection in but the there associated with other problems expected may cell this experiment. there are to way both It types of pressure cell available. yýy ý_r " rl a"' Figure 10. due to the presenceof the angle-sectionframework) the shell elementsin this area are 185 . "y_ 7' yy.3 Finite element predictions of the experimental rig The previously described finite element method is used to model the experimental (which be the the In to corner of accurately walls more model will order stiffer rig.

larger thickness than those modelling the wall.75m) from the finite element model. Figure 10. 0.9 1. shows element predictions of the used pressure down the wall compared with the Janssenprediction.05 1.2 O 1.45 ü 0. Overall finite element results is comparable to Janssen between the theory the and agreement the agreement seen in previous models.5 05 10 Wall normal 15 pressue 20 (kPa) 25 30 Figure 10.75 E S 0. This is due to the flat-bottomed base condition and similar effects were seen in Chapter 7.35 1. a assigned The granular bulk solid 10.7 .7 finite is Figure here the the pea gravel.3 0.Finite element and Janssen predictions rig of the mean pressure in the experimental There is a large end effect associated with the finite element model.8 shows the distribution of pressure across the wall halfway down the bin (0.6 -Janssen -Yprediction Feite element model prediction 0. 186 .15 0.

since is be large the to is of a predicted going value close to 3. The strain gauges attached to the filler filling box the commenced.3 0.4 Experimental results The experiment was performed a number of times.5 Distance from comer of bin (m) Figure 10. this a very 10. The for the appropriate value of parameter stiffness relative value E3L3/EW.12 10 Y CL 8 d CL 6 ö4 - 2- 0 0 0.3) (equation law to these element results gives a value of a at this predictive Evaluation of the solid stiffness as outlined in Chapter 9 is also possible.8). This gives a (equation 9.21 shows that.8 . value. Fitting the finite 9. should and around depth of 2. via wooden and silo were zeroed The silo was filled to the halfway point and then the pressure cells were placed in the gravel.2 0. t3 for this silo is therefore 9242 and referring to figure 9. The ratio of is 11: 1 which will result in values of a of to approximately midside pressure corner in be the 3 easily measurable experimental rig. Zero filled for The these then to the top taken cells.99.1 0. silo was and readings were readings taken from the pressure cells and strain gauges. 187 .4 0.Finite element prediction of pressure across the wall in the experimental rig There is a quite large amount of redistribution evident in the model.

12 10 I Finite element prediction r A x Test Series I 1 Test Series 2 Test Series 3 $A CL 4 C 2 0 0 0. 2001).9 .4.2 Comparison with predictive law fitted to the predictive law outlined the are centreline The pressures measured across previously.4 0.4. Janssen the test as well as appropriate series pressure predictions.10. 10.2 shows values determined from The This phenomenon has been noted by other researchers (Zhong el al.3 of wall (m) 0.1 Pressures across the centreline Figure 10. the the the of normal wall where mid-point quite at pressures The pressures measured show high degrees of variation between repeat experiments filler box fill to to the the the attempt make of as even and repeatable use even with as possible.5 Figure 10. the three Janssen values shown are calculated using ak value as recommended by ENV 1991- 188 .2 Distance from corner 0.Pressures in the model silo from free field cells and finite element model A large variation in the predicted pressure is observed between different test runs. This gives values of pm and a. Table 10.1 0. The pressures measured in the experimental silo show a distribution in agreement large finite the the model with a pressure near element corner and very low with deformation is large.9 shows the pressures across the centreline of the silo determined from the free field cells comparedto the finite elementmodel predictions.

3 0.24 2.68 3. Using this ratio may be more suitable for this silo due to its squat nature and the fact that deformations that could lead to failure are expected. in 0.53 3.2 0.14 3.4 (1995) and using the Rankine active ratio.Predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) fitted to experimental results 189 .10 .2 .10 shows the finite element. kPa Janssen (Rankine). solid stored Test series 1 Test series 2 Test series 3 a (kPa) pes.5 Distance from comer of wall (m) Figure 10.38 2. kPa Table 10.5m depth the of pressure at a 1s --14 ® Finite element prediction Test Series 1 Test Series 2 12 XT X T estS er ies 3 eries Predictive law (Test series 1) a 10 Predictive law (Test series 2) Predictive law (Test series 3) 8CL ` 0 io f f f s 1 4 2 0 0 0.11 Janssen (ENV 1991-4). the measured and the best fit predictive law values of wall normal bin. Figure 10. 3.4 0.76 from the predictive law of Rotter et a! (2002) These results again show the variability of the measured pressures but nevertheless the predictive law provides a good fit to the experimental data.Values of a and pm determined 4.1 0.85 3.

However. and vertical of strain determined from bin the down the the along midpoint as wall experimental and strain finite element models.11 horizontal in the the shows variation of wall. ) .4.A.Of course. 190 . These readings can be compared to the finite element predictions Figure 10. 10. The vertical stress in the wall finite element model is repeated with reasonable agreement in the by the predicted experiment.11 .Horizontal and vertical strain down the centreline of the bin wall Patterns predicted by the finite element model are repeated in the experiment. due to the variability of the test results there is a similar variation in the results from the best fit to the predictive law. 06 .C. ) (F_E. the previously proposed predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) has again been shown to provide a good fit to experimental data. GM . Figure 10. E. A. o -Y-direction -A - X-direction(experiment) Y-direction (experiment) -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Strain (µs) experimental rig. --ýX-direction (F. There bin the high tensile wall near the top as a result of the top of the wall is a strain across being unrestrained by any external stiffening.3 Strain in the silo wall As well as measuring pressures across the centreline of the silo wall a number of from in the taken gauges attached to the exterior of the wall were strain readings a aka 0 0 46 .

10.5 Summary A small square silo with a very thin wall was designed and this design modelled has been developed. The finite element model finite that the element model using 1.6mm lead large thickness to that a wall of should using variations of showed From free field the taken measurements across wall. using cells this normal pressure has been shown to be correct and the pressurespredicted by the finite elementmodel data. the measured with agreereasonably The measureddata shows a large degree of variability between fills which would in finite implement difficult the to elementmodeL prove Finally, the measuredpressuresare fitted to the predictive model of Rotter et al (2002) which again shows that for squareplanform silos this simple two parameter level. the observed of pressures on a model providesa good representation

191

Chapter 11 - Rectangular planform silos
The work presented so far has concernedsilos of a squareplanform. Therefore, due to symmetry of the finite element model only pressureson one wall have been factors discharge loading Although as eccentric such and will affect the considered. distribution of wall pressure, most codes are not specific about how these pressures will be dealt with. Attention is now turned to silos that are rectangular and non-squarein planform. Here both walls must be considered, as they may experiencedifferent pressure lengths. Figure 11.1 different due the to wall shows the notation and regimes describe below to rectangularplanform silos. conventions used

11.1 Limitations to this study This study will investigate the pressuresin rectangularsilos that are close to square (2: 1 is the largest ratio of a/b that will be considered),and that are either at the upper less for h/a 1.0 Ratios (defined than tall are relatively squat or as shallow extreme of be in but 1991-4), in EN Silos that would covered most silo codes. squat or shallow bunkers, be long treated as and generally plane strain analyses will and/or shallow are longer This known the for be wall. on predictions provides pressure a valid may bound for the stressconditions.

192

Definition Squat
Shallow

h/dr Less than 0.4
Between 0.4 and 1.0

Intermediate Slender

Between 1.0 and 2.0 Greater than 2.0

Table 11.1- Definitions according to EN1991-4 (Note: d= b for rectangular silos)

11.2 Current guidance available A number of other authorshave dealt with rectangular silos, and it is probably helpful to outline the approaches of Reimbert and Reimbert (1976) and Gaylord and Gaylord (1983). The former report their results for model-scale tests, and their deductions base from measurements the of silos; with some assumptions these at of pressure be to of estimate wall pressures an made. enable measurements Reimbert and Reimbertbasetheir theory upon the equilibrium of a slice (as Janssen), friction in depth downward the the the wall equilibrates that, silo, at some assuming force of the slice. They assume(and refer to experiments) that the pressure on the b*b. Hence deduction is that act on a square would silo of plan which a small wall
is longer `mean" derived both the the thrust the walls made, and on on pressure about from R These hydraulic 11.1 based are radius, calculated equations a on and walls 11.2 where subscripts S and L refer to the shorter and longer walls respectively.
Short wall RS __rb1 l4)

(11. x)
(a > b)

Long wall

RL =

(q2 aJ

(11.2)

This asymptotic value can only be reachedif the silo is sufficiently deep, and again implies a constantvalue of lateral pressureratio - although it should be noted that Reimbert and Reimbertreport the meanpressure.

193

As side length a becomes much greater than b, then the pressure on the longer wall tends to a limiting value that is twice the pressure on the shorter wall. This is shown in the relationship in Figure 11.2 The ratio of the side lengths directly determines the pressure ratio.

2

1.5 0 ee

a 0.5

0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Ratio of side lengths

Figure 11.2 - Ratio of pressures on long side to short side (after Reimbert)

Gaylord and Gaylord also report this same derivation using different notation, but longer is lower the that the than that on pressure side conclude confusingly somewhat is formulae It in be the that this presented. probable the of spite side, may shorter on longer is is intention larger. the the to the their pressure on side suggest and an error, Lightfoot bunkers. full (1966) Michael scale and model tests on squat coal conducted and Some design rules are given in this work for these types of structures but

these are not extended to deeper silos. Figure 11.3 shows the wall normal pressure predictions in a bin of planform ratio 2: 1 formulae 11.1 1991-4 (1995) 11.2. from ENV In latest the and and as calculated draft of EN1991, the hydraulic radius is still used in the Janssencalculations:

194

(11.3) -(2)(l+a) U
This leads to different pressure regimes, as shown in Figure 11.3. The main thing to note is that it implies the Janssenassumptions of constant lateral pressure ratio, k, at any given depth.

0

2 3
w4 0 d V 5 6 7 -ag 9 10 05 10 15 20 25 Wall normal pressure (kPa) -ýWall normal pressure (ENV 1991-4,1995) Normal pressure on long wall (Reimbert, 1976) Normal pressure on short wall (Reimbert, 1976) I

Figure 11.3 - Wall normal pressure predictions

in a rectangular

planform

silo

The consequence is that the designer has different sources of information giving at least two pressure regimes. Both of them imply that the wall of the silo is rigid and is lateral constant throughout. the ratio pressure that This may be perfectly

flexible for but for the walled silos silos, pressure regimes concrete acceptable inappropriate. be filling may predicted on It is also noted that for silos that have very large planform ratios the pressure long Eurocode by the by the Reimbert the on pressure wall and as predicted predicted determined from hydraulic to Reimbert a value a converge radius twice that of and

b/2). (i. R= e. the short wall

195

The walls were fully restrained in all directions and the fill was sand.towards the stored material.4 . The predictions from ENV 1991-4 are also plotted. 1 1 7 8 9 ý- ETW1991-4 . The remainder of this Chapter will investigate pressures in some selected rectangular is important for filling flexibility forms. Figure 11.5 :1) ) 5 1 Sh ll ( 1 t Shor : wa or wa .4 finite by long the the element model the on predicted and average pressures shows the short wall.5: 10 05 10 15 20 25 Wall normal pressure (kPa) Figure 11.The structural design will be based on the wall pressures. 1995 ( 1. demonstrate the that pressures.1995 (2: 1) Short w all (2: 1) Long w all (2: 1) 146. Two different 2: 1 1. but will also have implications for continuity at the corners. Long wall (1. and vice versa.Long and short wall pressures in a 2: 1 planform from ENV 1991-4 (1995) ratio bin compared to predictions 196 . wall silo and 11.3 Rigid walled silo ENV 1991-4 gives pressure predictions for rigid walled silos using the overall hydraulic radius. are planform ratios 0 1 2 3 t 4 5 6 ---8W -ý. the e.0 BAN 1991-4.5: 1. wall rotations about a vertical axis corners structural continuity at through the corner will be continuous) the shorter wall must move inwards . and shown. then if there is identical (i. and the wall pressures that are developed. The fill surface was modelled as level. A model was created 10m high with a hopper on the base.5: 1) -LongwaN(1. If the longer wall moves outwards away from the stored material. This hopper had an angle to the long wall of 45°.

2 of Reimbert and Reimbert (1976).3: 1.5 .1. Figure 11.4 Variation of planform ratio Four planform ratios are considered. be very can scale effects 11. influential 1983).1: 1. 5: then the to the will so wall compared g.1995 .5: 1 and 2: 1. The physical size of these experimental rigs give cause for concern as it is known that (Munch-Anderson. to will two walls 197 . Short wan wall -ýShort -ý -i-)EX 6 7 8 9 -A- 34 XX Long wall Normal pressure on long wall 1976) (Reimbert.1.This shows that for rigid walls the internal pressures are well predicted by ENV 1991-4 (1995). It Reimbert Reimbert Reimbert that may noted the and and with Reimbert based their calculations on a limited number of small scale experiments.5 shows the 2: 1 planform ratio rigid-walled bin compared to the predictions based upon equations 11. be If large two silos of a not radically planform ratio are the will walls on be flexible longer 1) (e. 0 1 2 3w 0 4 5 N hi 1991-4 1995 -ENV ENV 1991-4. short considered dominate behaviour its between the that the will silo response and comparisons wall be difficult draw. These are 1. 1976) 10 05 10 15 20 25 Wall normal pressure (kPa) Figure 11.FEA predictions compared to the predictions of Reimbert and Reimbert (1976) This clearly shows that the predictions made by the finite element model do not agree be distribution. These just that therefore to are out of square silos and represent pressures chosen are ratios different. 1976) (Reimbert.1 and 11. Normal pressure on short wall (Reimbert.

67 silo models Table 11.25m 3m 1.1:1 1. Ratio Long wall (a) Short wall (b) h/de 1. The wall thickness of the bin 20mm.2 .6-11.Length of walls in rectangular Figures 11. 0 2 is d4 5 3 F8 6 7 8 9X 10 02468 10 Wall normal pressure (kPa) 12 14 16 mmýWall -0 pressure (ENV 1991-4) 4.67 1.65m 1. The mesh density is kept the same as was used in the study of the square silo.67 1.6 . The actual sizes of the bins modelled are given in table 11. The Janssen distributions are also shown.Wall normal pressure in a 1.2 J4 Short wall (FEA) Long wall (FEA) I Figure 11.1: 1 planform ratio silo (sand fill) 198 .95m 2.5m 6.67 1.3:1 1.5m 6.2.5m 6.5m planform 6.5:1 2: 1 1. The boundary condition at the base is modelled as for the rigid walled model.Results from the finite element model are compared to wall pressures predictions formula from Janssen the using the value of hydraulic radius which are calculated given ENV 1991-4 (1995).9 show the wall normal pressures in the three different planforms of bin filled with sand.

Wall normal pressure in a 1.4L Figure 11.8 .4.5: 1 planform ratio silo (sand fill) 199 .Wall normal pressure in a 1.3: 1 planform ratio silo (sand fill) 0 2 iE 3 4 5 6 Wall pressure (ENV 1991-4) gt 9 10 05 10 15 20 25 Wall normal pressure (kPa) -XShort wall (FEA) Long wall (FEA) '7.7 .0 1 2 is 3 0 v4 5 6 7 8 9 10 05 10 Wall normal pressure (kPa) 15 20 mmmmm'NaII pressure (ENV 1991-4) tShort wall (FEA) -Long wall (FEA) Figure 11.

towards the passive on short wall e. the e. In the rectangular to possible bin the pressure acting on the long wall causes a moment about the corner of the bin. of of shown. This plot of deforming longer (i. This corresponds to a change in state from active on the long failing) is it (it is being (i. Reimbert Reimbert and of By inspection of the wall deformations it is identify the mechanism that explains this phenomenon. compressed).X 9 10 05 10 15 20 25 30 Wall normal pressure (kPa) Figure 11.10 the pressures. This is also true of the shorter side but the moment on the longer wall is greater. This forces back the the the towards and short corner about wall of walls causes a rotation the stored material.0 2 3 0 v 4 y5 Wall t pressure (ENV 1991-4) Short wall (FEA) Long wall (FEA) 7--. away shows clearly plot inwards deforming (i. shows an exaggerated contour observed causes deformation The is the the top the magnitude silo walls. The pressures on the long and short in finite longer the the the and shorter wall element model is same no walls are is longer larger the than wall which contrary to the prediction pressure experiencing a (1976).9 .Wall normal pressure in a 2: 1 planform ratio silo (sand fill) The initial observation is that the pressures predicted by the finite element method disagree with the predictions from the Eurocode. from the outwards the stored wall e. shorter wall and material) 200 . This wall higher Figure 11. towards the stored material).

720a-02 +8. U 1: Ma to t T me ni ud ef ion -{ Scale actor: +5.463e-02 +2.916e-02 +ß.245e-05 -" +2.205e-02 +4.000 Figure 11. 174e-02 +7. In this unstiffened case the observed pressures. 2-1 Ved A )r 17 9: L"' Daylight Time 2002 31 Step: Step-2 Increment Primary Var: Deformed Var . the theory. 0 1 2 3 0 d4 u 5 6 L7 8 9 10 012345678 Wall normal pressure (kPa) Wall pressure (ENV 1991-4) 0--Short wall (FEA) .494e-02 2 ODB: 10mhigh.Wall normal pressure in a 1.236.10 .978e-02 +7.11 . -02 +1. for flexible rectangular bins there are shortcomings in the current theory.11-11.689e-02 +5.432e-02 -+5.*- Longwall (FEA) Figure 11. Magnitude +6.515e-03 +9.1: 1 planform ratio silo (wheat fill) 201 .Deformation of the wall at the top of the silo Clearly. whilst still conforming to a Janssen form by distribution.947e-02 +3. predicted are poorly of Figures 11. odb ABAQ S/ and .U.14 show the same three bins but filled with wheat material.

13 .12 .0 2 3 04 v 5 E6 6 87 -Wall 8 -ýShort pressure (E W 1991-4) w all (FEA) 910 0123456789 Longw all (FEA) Wall normal pressure (kPa) Figure 11.3: 1 planform ratio silo (wheat fill) 0 1 E2 is 0 3 4 S 6 '7 $' 8t g 10 02468 Wall normal pressure (kPa) 10 -*-Wall pressure (ENV 1991-4) Short wall (FEA) Long wall (FEA) Figure 11.Wall normal pressure in a 1.5: 1 planform ratio silo (wheat fill) 202 .Wall normal pressure in a 1.

been kept thickness this study.14 .15. one particular rectangular silo has been analysed. 203 . 15mm and 20mm.5: 1. The stored material is modelled as Leighton Buzzard sand. Inspection of the wall deformations shows that the mechanism in the this model.Wall normal pressure in a 2: 1 planform ratio silo (wheat fill) The average pressure down the bin wall follows a similar pattern to that observed in the sand model. the around corner also rotate occurs walls whereby 11. The (5m depth) at mid-height normal pressures wall of are shown in Figure variation 11. The aspect ratio .0 E2 0 454 4 N 5 6 L 7 8 9-100X Wall pressure (ENV 19914) Short wall (FEA) Long wall (FEA) 2468 Wall normal pressure (kPa) 10 12 Figure 11.the ratio of the longer side to shorter side (a/b) is initial In has 1. wall as constant for both chosen long and short side walls.5 Variation of wall thickness In order to investigate the effects of wall thickness. Three different wall thicknesses have been used: 10mm.

Figure 11.5 0.125 -1 0. at a depths of 5m). the implication is that the principal direction on a horizontal plane is not at 45° to the between The arching are consistent an with mechanism results corners.5 -0. This can be attributed to the decreased flexural stiffness of the wall.25 -0.75 -0. e. For the thinner walls the ratio of corner to midside pressure is higher. The is higher the that the than that of the on average short wall pressure graph also shows long wall (due to the previously described rotations). wall.Redistribution of wall normal stress in a rectangular bin of planform ratio 1. At the corner of the bin the orthogonal differ.15 shows the redistribution of wall normal stress across the wall for three different wall thicknesses. For all three wall thicknesses.875 -0.75 Figure 11.25 -0.5: 1 The long wall shows a much lower pressure at the midpoint compared to the short wall.as the midheight of the bin section (i.625 0. The section is chosen .somewhat arbitrarily .625 -0.15 . the previously reported normal pressure variation is present. stresses Assuming the major principal stress is vertical.-0 -U-W -ý- Short KrallGomm thick wall) Long wall (10mm thick wall) Short wall (15mm thick wall) Long wall (15mm thick wall) -A -Short wall (20mm thick wall) X Long wall (20mm thick wall) 29 _a 0 c Ä -1.375 0.125 0 Distance from comer of wall (m) 0.125 0. The higher values seen on the short wall can be attributed to the rotational effect observed.375 -0. 204 .

ratio planform aspect More efficient rectangular silos might be designed if these reduced wall pressure ductility in joints. a thinner becomes important be Structural in several efficiency used. It is clear that the is (1976) finite Reimbert Reimbert the at odds with elementmodel but and work of the pressures predicted by the Eurocode will lead to conservativedesigns as the increases. When the wall is made flexible the patterns of pressure predicted by the finite element model becomemore unpredictable.6 Summary The work presented above shows that when predicting wall pressures for rigid walled silos it is appropriate to use the values suggested by ENV 1991-4 (1995). If the with sufficient vertical corner exploited.11. are phenomena designs are enabled that allow reduced midside wall pressuresto be used. The suggestionsof Reimbert and Reimbert (1976) appear to disagreewith the predictions for rigid walled silos. wall section can is but knowledge the patterns also essentialto understand of pressure applications. the relationship between internal pressuresand flow patternsin the stored solid 205 .

Chapter 12 . and above pressures confirm previously reported results. though these models were relatively thick-walled. the wall thickness and the planform size. It has been lead laws to that are suitably these that constitutive may not alone parameters shown In for the particular the use of a parameter silo wall pressures. A parametric survey was carried out on a squareplanform silo and investigated the effect of varying the stored solid. level of redistribution of pressureacrossthe wall and therefore there is a limit to the be by further to made reducingthe wall thickness. The work presented Firstly. that work experimental et made al. observations Chapter 7 investigated some observed end-effects in an axisymmetric model Wall base Janssen increase the the pressures near predicted of the silo. it In models with axisymmetric was noted that. Chapter 6 showed that two described in terms of similar whose properties are very when granular materials "standard" bulk solids parameterscould produce pressure distributions across the different. even observed pressures. of prediction robust (in this work. A mechanism was proposed that explains the hoppers. small deformations of the hopper both large below have the to the effects on wall pressures above very and were shown transition. savings structural 206 . granular material using a continuum method was considered. the general problem of describing a discrete. the logarithmic bulk modulus) that relates the stiffness of the stored bulk solid to the stress level is especiallyimportant.Conclusionsand further work herehasinvestigatedseveralaspectsof silo problems. Previous finite element work has either used laws based on a linear elastic assumption or based upon parameters (such as the internal angle of friction) regularly used to describegranular materials. This that silo were markedly planform replicated wall of a square in (Lahlouh been had 1995). A formulated between the that relative stiffness characterised was stored bulk parameter investigation Further showed that there appears to be a maximum solid and silo wall.

in the the observedpressure silo resulting comer of 12. stored " In axisymmetric silo problems the flexibility of the hopper has a large effect on both above the transition and in the hopper. increases.1 Summary of main conclusions In summarythe main findings of the work are: " Constitutive laws for granular materials in silo models must (in all but the most for deformations. It is necessary logarithmic bulk in the to modulus order to account for parameter comparable in law ABAQUS Use the elastic of porous meansthat the volumetric change. It had been suggested that the long wall would experiencea larger in but flexible the the than modelled walled silos this was wall shorter pressure is identified there A be whereby rotation about the to was mechanism shown untrue. feature This be incorporated the stress overall as stiffens must material in any constitutive model for non-circular silos. 207 . small deformations that occur can have a radical effect on the pressure regimes. distributions. " Common parametersused to classify bulk solids (such as 0) may not be sufficient to have some to accuratelymodel their behaviour in silo problems.6mm) showed patterns of wall pressure that agreed with the finite element model and the redistribution law of Rotter et al (2002).An experimentalsilo with a very thin wall (1. Even when the hopper the pressures is modelled with thick walls. Rectangular planform silos were investigated and the finite element results showed that patterns of pressure on the long and the short wall disagree with existing knowledge. " End-effects observed in finite element modelling of silos are a real phenomenon base friction between the the the the wall and the and of stiffness as a result of bulk solid. This is plastic cases) account especially simple axisymmetric true in thin-walled silos.

t . Reimbert and Reimbert (1976) suggesta larger pressureon the long wall and lower on the short finite is The that this element results suggest not the case It was also wall. Large deflections did not occur. It was also shown that if large deformations occurred the value of based hard to upon the proposed relative stiffness parameter. a parameter a to characterise pressure disrtibutions has been postulated. would and walls 208 ý. " Following a previous study. This work shows that it relies on the relative stiffness There is an asymptotic value of a for a between silo wall and stored material is there therefore a theoretical limit to the amount of stress given material and redistnbution. This in the the Janssen one of at a given major assumptions constant equations and therefore the use of this theory in relation to square silos must be Janssen however distribution was a good It that the shown was questioned. predictor of the meanpressure. agreedwell with experimental " Analysis of three-dimensionalsquare silos shows that the value of k is not is depth. " Current methods for the prediction of the pressureson the long and the short wall in a rectangular silo are inadequate. pressures material not used elementresults paperwas modelled(wheat) and the patternsseenpreviously were predicted. when the silo wall is flexible. " The predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) gives a good representation of finite for in A the the original across wall. The results obtained fitted the predictive law very well and the values of a agreed with the patterns predicted by the relative stiffness parameter. (1995) ENV 1991-4 that was only applicable to silos that featured rigid shown be to this appear a shortcoming." Simple one-dimensionalconsolidationtests on granular bulk solids were shown to provide material parametersthat resulted in finite element predictions which data. predict a was " An experiment using a very thin-walled silo was conducted and the showed that the finite element predictions were a good comparison.

" Stiffened silos.this work has been solely interested in pressuresexerted on the walls of a full silo. it was noted that rectangular silos are often stiffened. chapter 11 identified some general trends in rectangular silos but further work is needed to formulate an accurate method for the prediction of in pressures rectangularsilos.12. especiallythose with very flexible walls. Hopper pressures are only discussedbriefly here but the finite element investigate be the effect on filling pressures of different to used model could hoppers (e. 209 . The finite investigate be to the effect of these stiffeners on could element model used distributions. the work presented here used an incremental gravity fill method but other researchershave used a layered fill method. The natural extension to this work would be to move towards a modelthat could predict the pressuresduring discharge. mass flow.andwhich moreappropriate. " Fill method.2 Further work During the course of this research a number of avenues of exploration have been identified. " Hopper pressures.g. pressure " Rectangular silos. in there are a number of theories for the prediction of pressures hoppers. funnel flow. It would be of interest to investigate whether results would be affected dependent on which method was is used. " Discharge pressures. eccentric etc).

pp. Technical University of Denmark. Czechoslovakia. Report No.. (1990). materials". "Stress and strain measurements in solid materials". University and Handling. W. Chem.References ABAQUS usersmanual (2001). 315-321. P. Univ. Kobenhavn. V. Airy. 10th Int. "Applicability of normal and shear stress cells embedded in Experimental Mechanics. Civ.McGraw-Hill. pp. (1995). W. Askegaard. 92. 35. of Denmark. Struct. Vol.. (1980).C. P. Of Chem. (1978).L. "Measurement of pressure between a rigid wall and a by medium means of pressure cells". Kobenhavn. Arnold. "Stress calculations in silos by finite element method using different behaviour laws for the ensiled material". Technical University of Denmark. Minutes of Proc. 14. V.. Karison & Sorensen Inc. cohesionless 210 ýy . Praha.2°d edn. E. Askegaard. Aribert. No. Eng. Report S. Askegaard. (1897). Bulk Solids: Storage. J. Structural compressible Research Laboratory.J. Tech.2. V. (1989). Version 6. Equipment Design and Automation. "Three componentpressurecells for steel model silo". Australia. Dept. Eng..8817. Engng. "The pressureof grain".Vol. (1961). Hibbitt. Inst. V. Askegaard. London. (1978). andBransby. Congr.H. G. McLean. Structural Research Laboratory. Bulletin No. 131.M. Flow Associates. A. and Ragneau. 4. Tunra Bulk Solids Handling Research of Newcastle.TheMechanics Atkinson. of Soils. 347-358. A. and Roberts.

E& FN Spon. "Influence of Personal Factor on Cell Handling. silos". No. and stress and strain Theory Fundamentals Design. 41.Askegaard. Arnold.J. (1980). V. Been. 3. pressure cell measurement Copenhagen. 221-224. (1998).. J. and Nielsen.Brown. Bares. J. when no. pp. the Amerogen). C. materials under repeated Science. Brown. (1995). pp.. "A non-linear model for the elastic behaviour of granular Microstructural loading".. G6otechnique Bishop. (1991). A. (1998). Pressure Embedded Mounting Response vol. Silos.25.J. Silos. Fundamentalsof Theory and Design. C. Elastic van ed. "The critical state of sands". vol 1. (1979). and Nielsen. C. in of and and medium". Bulk Solids 15. and Brown. Tables for the Analysis of Plates. (1957). in Byggningsstatiske 33-73. D. The Measurementof Soil Properties in the Triaxial Test. J. H. Brown. R. Macdonaldand Evans Ltd.J. Askegaard. Bergholdt. Slabs and Diaphragms Basedon by (English Carel GmbH Bauverlag 3`d translation Theory. J. 211 . Boyce. C. M.V. R. 285-294. J. 365-381. K. "Problems in connection with MeddeleLser. pp. E& FN Spon. M. V. pp. Jefferies.. and Hachey. "Rectangular silo structures". "Normal and shear stress on a silo wall. and Henkel.J. W. (1971). Askegaard.. G. Cells". a silo state Nielsen.

"A rigorous statistical technique for inferring circular silo wall pressures from wall strain measurements".. W. 157-165. pressures".F. and Nielsen. (1994).F. Coulomb. Powder Technology.H... D. Chen. and Rotter. relatifs quelques problemes rAcadamie Royale des Sciences.M. C. 2. pp. Ooi. Fundamentalsof Theory and Design. "Essai sur une applicationdes regles de maximis et minimis a 1'architecture".Y.Y. Deutsches Institut für Normung. J. 223-233.M. 2 Plasticity and Modelling. J. J.G. M. Ooi. J. S.K.Engineering Structures. 4. DIN 1055 (1987). and Hasanain. Mech. Texas. "A review of numerical prediction in Structural Advances Engineering. 2.Chen..No. de Memoires Mathematique de de a statique..J. J. H.Vol. "Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design". and Rotter. J. No. 343-382. and Ooi. 10. Proc. Brown.36.F. (2000). IF. and Prager. Vol 18. J. silo-material study of 212 .Y. ASCE. E& FN Spon. (1996). Assorted papers in Silos. Chen. Rotter. 14th Eng. Berlin. Yu.pp. pp. Conf. Constitutive Equations for Engineering Materials . J. C. J. CA (1776). (1952). "Design loads for buildings: loads in silo bins". (1983). (1999). "Parametric interaction". J.M. DIN 1055 Part 6. Emanuel. pp. J. for Vol. vol.S. Mahmoud. Austin. W. (1998). 321-331.. wall silo methods pp.. J. 119-135. Eibl. Chen. Elsevier Science. Drucker. Best. "Finite elementprediction of filling pressuresin a ring stiffened imperfect full-scale silo". Quarterly of Applied Mathematics.

and Schwedes. "Constitutive laws for granular materials". (1984).J. Cottineau. 405-414. pp.. C.. J. (2001). Brussels.H. 49. Design of Steel Bins for Storage of Bulk New Jersey. "Finite elementpredictionsof filling Con£ Bulk 7te Int. W.N. J. (2001).Part 4Silosandtanks. Solids. Veb Verlag Für Bauwesen. J.J. Fundamentals of Theory and Design... no. Feise. (1966).J. pressure embedded Gaylord. 0. C.J. E. H. International. Series 1226. 3. E& FN Spon.H. A. silos.. Berlin.Prentice-Hall Goodey. vol. and Gaylord. Brown. and Nielsen. Materials Storage. Brussels. Handling in steel silos". Con£ Bulk Materials Storage. Brown.CEN. J. structures. (1998). J. `The determinationof the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion 241. Gamier. -M. 376-396. C. Newcastle. and Brown. L. 213 ý . (1957). "Building a numerical model for bulk solid materials from standardsheartest data". ENV 1998-4 (1999) Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake resistance of CEN. C. and Daiß. Geotechnique pp. Feise. "Silos und Bunker in Stahlbeton". Handling and Australia.t s . (1999). Transportation. and Rotter. Transportation.M.D. J.-J. Silos. andrelatedproblems". Society A. Eshelby. Newcastle. "Placement of No. Royal Proc. Ternet. and presstures rectangular Australia. cells". 7t' Int. Fischer. 4Steel Part tanks and pipelines.ENV 1991-4 (1995) Eurocode 1: Basis of design and actions on structures.

Hujeux. "3D finite elementsimulation of the wall " 14thEngineeringMechanics flexibilty in a square silo during filling and discharge. G.Stockholm.. J. S. (1984). Con£ On Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. These de Docteur-Ingenieur. JMF. no. N.. and VVB Hartlen. England. J. Martensson."Filling and discharge stages finite element analysis. P. (1983). upon powdered . A. J. university of Texas. Conf.E.. 2" Int. Janssen. Nielsen. J. voL Jarrett.Games.. and Kerour. Stratford 2°d of and coal". CA SILO CollaborativeAction WG4. rectangular 214 .J.A. D.May 2000. "Pressures in silos". "Verasche über Getreidedruckin Silozellen". (1895).Zeitschrift VDI. De PotentiaRestitutiva. (1948). "Analysis of silo-material interaction for for Conf Design Silos Strength Int. Swedish for in large Council Building silos".L. 35. 39. D. PhD Thesis. P. (1979). Jaky. Rennes. G. B. Research. Proc.. Ljunggren.NL (1996). Avon. (1991). (1678). Internal report for the EuropeanWorking Group. 1045-1049. Flow.Austin. grain pressure by Holst. and Rotter. "A study on the influence of wall flexibility on pressure in Brunel University. Hooke.C. de Consolidation Elastoplastique. Ragneau. pp. R. G.H. and Dickenson. J. "The wall Document D2: 1984. Calcul Numerique de Problemes Ecole Centralede Paris.Y.. Ibrahim.London. Texas. Rotterdam. silos". Ooi.

W. EngineeringDigest(Toronto).J. Bodenmech. "Silo failures: lessons to be learned".L. pp. "Friction model for the finite Trans. and Goodwill. D. 8. Jenike. Brown. Proc.M.C. N. 1011-1041. A. Brown. pp. D. 95.T. A. pp of silos". of ASCE. (1977). Jenike. No. and Carson. 901-923. and Fwa.. T. (1964). 1. 215 . "Bin loads .ASCE. D. vol. Bull. 6-12. Utah Engineering ExperimentStation. B.. "Bin loads".Part 3: Mass flow bins". Jnl.Industry. vol. W. 33. ASAE. VeröffentL Inst. and Moore.April. K. E. no. A. rectangular Jenike.H.University of Utah.VoL 96. Salt Lake City. Jofriet. C. J. "Comparisonof plane strain and triaxial tests on sands". Univ.. Fundamentalsof Theory and Design.B. "Pressure measurements 95-104.J. R.. E& FN Spon. (1988). and Nielsen. 45. Journal of the Structural Division. (1995). 735-744. Trans ASME. and Rotter.R. F. (1970).D. "Loads on rectangular plan form University Edinburgh.R.VoL 94.J. (1968). Engng. C. pp.J. in Silos. pp. (1973). LeLievre.No. CJ. "Internal structures (ties and internals)". R95-027. and Johnson. Karlsruhe. Johnson.in a Jarrett. elementanalyses Khelil. Lahloub. Geotechnique.W. J. J. no.Brown. 123. W. (1995). ST4. (1998). SM3.No. Jenkyn.Felsmech..J. Lee. Heft 109. 2C(4). Report Research of steel silos". silo". (1987). "Storage and flow of solids". A.J. Kolymbas.

1. SBI Bulletin 91. steelwork". pp. 172-188. UK. (1987). Stuttgart. M.A. A. "Simulation of axisymmetric discharging in metallic silos. No.C.. "Incipient flow in silo-hopper configurations". Structural 2. I. Note 847. Link. M. 5(3).Tech. S. K. and Elwi. Vol. "Sur l'equlibre elastique d'une plaque rectangulaire". (1966). National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Sci. J. pp. Lightfoot. 12-19. November.. "Square plate with clamped edgesunder normal pressureproducing large deflections". R Acad.. (1981). H. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. analytique et practique de la pousseedes terres et des murs de revetement". No. Martinez. 1561-1574. (1906). and Doblare. Munch-Andersen. A. (1808). Powder Bulk Solids Tech.Vol. "Traite experimental. G.Alfred Kroner. 44. 129. Jnl. E. pp. and Brink. A.Levy. Analysis of the induced pressure distribution and different Engineering Structures. 24.. standards". Silo model tests with sand. 116. "Prismatic coal bunkers in structural Engineer. (1899). E. Danish Building ResearchInstitute. (1992). Stratford-upon-Avon. Erddruck auf Stutzmauern. SecondInternational Conference on Design of Silos for Strength and Flow. Munch-Andersen. M. Levy. 55-62. "Loading on shallow cylindrical flexible grain bins". A. Paris. D. J. pp. with comparison Mayne]. Mahmoud. "Scale errors in model silos tests". and Abdel-Sayed. 535-539. V. A. Alfazo. (1942). Müller-Breslau. 216 . Askegaard. The pp. R. and Michael. (1983). (2002).

Y.. (1956). 123-135. (1992). "Pressures 2684. Ooi. Australia from flowing". Institutionof Engineers. Cambridge University Press. J. 'Load distribution in silos influenced by anisotropic grain behaviour". "Does the conventional method of calculating bin pressures " (In Dutch). Thesis. Ingenieur. Ooi. (1983). Department of Structural Engineering. E. EngineeringStructures. pp. give correct results? Nedderman. RM. Brown.J. Nielsen. (1990). J. Handling and Transportation. TechnicalUniversity of Denmark. Nielsen.. Trans. The Mechanical Behaviour of Bulk Solids and the Prediction of PhD.Nanninga. J.M. C.. J. R Soc. Nielsen. Fundamentals of Theory and Design. Lond. and Rotter.. and Andersen. Phil. pp. J.44 pp.Y. Statics and Kinematics of Granular Materials. `toads in grain silos". Bygnmgsstatiske VoL 53.University of Sydney. Wall Pressures. 356. (1990). J. N. (1982).Y. 73-87. (1998). "The choice of constitutive laws for silo media".No. and Weidner. 190-194. J. Nielsen. and Nielsen. "Systematic and random features of full-scale on silo walls". (1979). Newcastle. J. in Silos.J. Report No. 12 (2). measuredpressures 217 (I . Lyngby. Pham. 4. "Opmaling of silo i Karpalund". 4. International conference on Bulk Materials Storage. 2667Nielsen. E& FN Spon. (1998). Meddelelser. L. J.

and Wenzel. and Rotter.M. pp. E& FN Spon. no.M. A.. "Prediction of static wall pressuresin coal silos". No. (1965). J. Ooi. 37.A. K. J. Fundamentals of and Design. "Finite elementmodels for specific Theory Silos. `Pressee conditions in silos. Trans Tech Publications. Int.Y. Rennnbert. and Anbert. J. and Nielsen.vol 60. 2. "Finite element analysis of wall pressure in imperfect silos".. J. (1997). M. (1993). J. Solids and Structures. and She.Y. applications".J. Ragneau. (1976). 16. K. Concrete and Engineering. Pieper. and Sanad. Brown. M.M. Ooi. J. 2. 4. pp. and Reimbert. (1857). Rotter (1990). Con£ On Micromechanics stages emptying of GranularMedia.F. J.Ooi. C. Lohnes. J. 10. element analysis". (1996). Ooi.Royal Societyof London.W. Ragneau. 2061-2072. pp.Vol 147. et vindange)". Vol. and J.M. 34. J. R. Revised 1987. "Wall pressures in squat steelsilos from simplefinite Computersand Structures. 361-374.E. F. Rankine.. No.M.M. "On the stability of loose earth". 2m Int. 4. Vol. and Rotter.Y. Chen. Trans. Constructional Ragneau. "Modelisation numerique par element fini tridimensionnel pour le calcul des actions aux parois des silos (remplissage Construction Metallique. vol. Phil.. J. (1994). (1998). `Prediction of loads in silos during filling and finite by a element method".J. M. 109-116. No.Y. no. J. Silos: Theory and practice. A. E.E.. Aribert. 218 . Construction and Building Materials.

"Membranetheory of shells for bins and silos Bins for the Storageof Bulk Solids.Tokyo. pp.J. Roscoe. KH. (1882)."Bendingtheory of shellsfor bins and silos'. EngineeringStructures.School of Mining and Civil Engineering. VoL 34. and Young. J. 135-150. J. Irrt. Handling and Transportation. (2001). J. p399. (1975). Guide for the Economic Design of Circular Metal Silos. (1985b). J. substances".M. I. and Thurairajab.C. J. Rotter.Proc. A.. `Pressures of storedgrain'. "Yielding of claysin states wetterthancritical".M.Roark.University of Sydney. Roberts.School of Mining and Civil Engineering. R. Rotter.London. E. 219 . pp. "Determinationof the vertical and lateral pressures of granular Proc. Design of Steel Rotter. (1884). Rotter. Engineers. (1985a).University of Sydney. and Lahlouh. 225-240.Vol. Design of Steel Bins for the Storage of Bulk Solids. Brown. Schofield. Roberts.N.M. Engineering. (2002). "Patterns of wall pressure on filling a squareplanform steelsilo". "The analysis of steelbins subjectto eccentricdischarge".pp 127-120. R Soc. McGraw Hill Kogakusha. C. (1986).M..24. W. Correspondence on 15. 36. Geotechnique.H. Rotter. A. Formulas for Stress and Strain. Spon Press. (1965).Australia.I. Con£ On Bulk Materials Storage.M. Institution of Wollongong. r.J.

J. Rend. A. and Bennett.. Phil. R Soc. Vol. Flow Pattern Measurement in Full Scale Silos.McGraw-Hill. 5. M.R. Design of Steel Bins for the Universityof Sydney. 19-25.M. 877-884. Trans. Mackintosh. 6. "On the structural analysis of rectangular steel bins".. 2685-2712. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. Ascot. (1981). K. P. N. 230pp.M. Critical State Soil Mechanics. UK. pp. pp. No. and Nilsson. "Finite element modelling of the gravitational flow of a granularmaterial". S.F.L. and Woinowsky-Krieger. (1998).Y. J. Troitsky. Schumaker. Tiley.Schoolof Mining and Civil Engineering. Ooi. (1959). "Sur 1'ecoulementdes corps solids soumis a de fortes pression".Mc-Graw Hill.. British Materials Handling Board publication.. (1864). JnL of Powder and Bulk Solids Tech. J. H.. (1986). in Plates Ugural. (1980). C. Lond. J. 4(4). Runesson. Trabair. Tresca. Schofield. Storage of Bulk Solids.G. pp. (1981). S. J. Terzaghi. and Sanad. Compt. P.. McGraw Hill.. S. M. Ooi. Spline Functions: Basic Theory.Y. (1943).J. Bulk Solids Handling.L. F.Stresses andShells. S. Vol.Rotter. John Wiley and Sons. (1968). (1985). Holst. I. (1995). Theory of Plates and Shells. and Wroth. Wiley and Sons.M. F.A. Timoshenko.A. 220 . Chen. "Characteristicsof structural form". J.P.J. 356. "Silo pressure predictions using discrete-elementand finite-element analyses".. 59. Rotter. L.K.

"Finite elementpredicted static and in bins". Zhang. "A boundary element method for prediction of silo No. DM (1966). pp.. (1910). 4. Computers pp. (1992). 23. I K. 28. I Y. J. (1986). 1.K. L. 13-21.H. Vol. "A theoreticalanalysisof stresses Chem Eng. T. pp. 315-323. C. Sci. M. 45. H.Vol. Trans. and Manbeclc H.LCPC. Engineering Chemical voL 21. loads Trans. 2131-2136. 248-256. V. France. 582-592. in axially-symmetric hoppers Walters. Y. pp. and pressures". (1913). Engineering stresses 221 ýý ý . Principes matlenatiques et physiquesdes modeleselastoplastiques Franco-Polonais de Paris. "Finite element modelling of thermally induced pressuresin grain bins filled with cohesionless granular materials". in silos with vertical walls. "An approximatetheory for pressures and arching in hoppers". Wu.ASAE. Goettinger Nachr. zustand". V. Phys. (1973b). Q. Z. 756-767. pp. No. and Schmidt. No. and Rotter. "Me sensitivity of silo flow and wall Structures. Ooi. "Festigkeitsproblemeim Muschinenbau". pp. Science. J. VoL 28. Zhang. des Wilde (1979). (1986). Puri.ASAE. Compterendudu colloque colspulverulents. pp. 32(6). Puri. Von Mises.. "Mechanik der festen koerper in plastisch deformablem Math. (1973a).M (2001). induced thermally grain Zhong.. 779-789." Walters. to filling n thod".. 3. Walker. Structures. VoL 2. "A theoreticalanalysisof stresses andbunkers".pp. 29(1). ScL. 975-997.. Q. p349.B. Encyklopaedie der MathematischenWissenschaften.B. and Manbeck.Von Karman.Chem Eng. R. M.

McGraw-Hill 222 ýý \ . and Taylor. The Finite Element Method (4' Edition). (1989).Zienkiewicz.C.O. RL.

Publications (2001).A Conf. 7th Int. pressures rectangular Newcastle. 223 V.`Tinte elementpredictionsof filling Goodey. Brown. CJ and Rotter.. . Australia. Transportation.Handling and steel silos". in Bulk MaterialsStorage. J .J. R.

1987) is based upon the equilibrium of a horizontal figure is in A. dp.Derivation of the Janssen formula (1895) theory that is referred to in this work and in most current codes The Janssen (ENV 1991-4. 2) The relationshipbetweenthe horizontal and vertical pressureis taken as constant and definedby equationA. deep This in shown equilibrium silo. 1) The relationshipbetweenthe pressureon the wall and the friction coefficient is given by equationA.1995. 1. 3. 1. i -r quunonum rvusiueruL4ou for ersassen tnevey Summation of the vertical forcesgives equation A. slice of material a rigure A. 224 . 2.A-yAdy+gCdy=0 (A. =p ph (A. DIN 1055.Appendix A.

2 and A. 3 into equation A. 4) Ph =2 (1-e-1kr/R) (A'S) 225 ý''i .3) Substituting equations A. 4 and A.ph kpr - (A. P. _ (1-e-vý)PR) (A. 1 and integrating gives equations A. 5 for the vertical and horizontal pressureon the wall respectively.

total the table number of elements each gives mesheswere consideredand is Distributions distribution The with a along edge.Appendix B. 1-! Number of elements in each mesh Figure B. nodes is adjusted slightly to ensure the slave and master contact surfaces are correctly lead This to the very small elements adjacent to the contact surface can orientated. uniform each of elements model. 1 gives a pictorial representation of the element distribution in the part of the model representing the stored solid in the parallel section of the bin. will converge a value expected silo wall that a very coarsemesh will poorly estimatethis value. of elements 297 Fine Mesh 2 527 Mesh 3 1013 Mesh 4 1711 Mesh 5 2657 Table ß. below large density those than generate a number of very small outlined greater mesh in the When the such position of some are created a model contact pairs elements. being defined incorrectly and having a negative volume or turning inside out. 226 .Convergencetest on the three-dimensional model In order to choose a mesh density for the three-dimensional model that provides accurateresults with the minimum of computational time a convergence test was The Lahlouh (1995) increasingly geometry et of al was meshed with performed. This type of error will causethe Abaqussolver to terminate the analysis. Coarse Mesh 1 Total no. while a very fine mesh will increased Five but time. larger numbersof elementsand the horizontal displacement at the centre-top of the is displacement It This to was monitored. the computational at of expense result provide an accurate in l B.

2 shows the displacement of this point as determined by the five different meshes.2 11.08 1.16 c 1.1 S 1. 2 . meshes the density of mesh 3 could be used and it would in fact be advantageous to use mesh density 3 as it is the quickest to solve. Any of the feasibly be could variables monitored. output Figure B. 227 .04 0 500 1000 Number 1500 of elements 2000 in model 2500 3000 Figure B.18mm and that 5 3.06 = 1.14 1. 1.18 1.Wall normal deformation at the top mid-point of the bin It shows clearly that the value of the displacement tends towards 1.7 15 25 Mesh 1 Mesh 3 Mesh 5 in Element distribution bin the the parallel section of - The choice to monitor the displacement of the bin is an arbitrary one.4 indicates the This give and most that any mesh above accurate results.12 1.

1775. 2.0.1 1. ** ** Section: walls Section.0.110 283.2.75 1219..0.0.0.72456e-31.115. -------etc-------etc---------etc---------etc--------- 0.1 SECTIONS _G16. ** ** elements walls for nset=walls-l.0..0.375.0.116.24.2.1.0..15.116 -------etc-------etc---------etc---------etc--------282.006.75. *Elset.6 1220.3.Appendix C.2.. *Shell elset=walls-1.1775. 0.320.320.25.0. *Element.45.23. 1. type=S4 Define shell 1.0.320.0.Sample finite element input file The following is an input file for ABAQUS 6.283. Sections of the node and element definitions have been removed in order to make the files presentation more convenient.0. 320.5 ** ** ** material thickness _G16. generate generate Define element wall sets node and Define shell behaviour.68.75.71 0.109 *Nset.375. _G16.2326e-32 0. 1.113 2.0. *Heading Model ** Job name: final ** -----------------------------------** ** PART INSTANCE: walls-1 name: Model-1 Define title job Define nodes ** *Node 1. 322. for X-Y-Z walls in format -------etc-------etc---------etc---------etc--------319.319.2 that modelsthe geometry of Lahlouh is behaviour described filled by (1995) Leighton Buzzard the sand whose with et al porous-elastic/Drucker-Prager constitutive law.6.2. elset=walls-1.10.6 228 .108. -0. material=steel fori for X-Y-Z and PART INSTANCE: solid-i iddi solid format inn *Node 321.24.109.

193. 602.519. 407. 883. 45.885.504.619.864. 44.233. 637.type-C3D8 *Element. 380 406. 626 632.824. 634. 381.439.567. 837.98.789. 634. 69.607.640. 337.566. 559.8. 652. 13. 102.838.1220. 253. 617. 335.869. 642 648.669. 79.839.594.107. 650. node and element sets for boundary conditions.94.47. 284. 603.846. 258. 100. mater ial=sand Define internal 1.597. 604.539.629.549. 304 243.283.565.517.1 SECTIONS node element and sets Define solid behaviour ** ** Section: ensiled Section. 486.10.573.784. 331. elset-_G12 4.615. 633. 659.7.188.779.478. 103.631.599.612.623.699. 74.841. 649.105. 64.2 213. 499. 574.674. 419. 59. 835.829.694.534.847.11. *Solid elset=solid-1.544. 464. 844 874. 409.625. 604 479.106. output etc 579.464. 569.628.469.576.1220. 524 554. 644. 799. 355. 92 99. 574.578 568. 101.622.356.709.434.90. nset-_G12 and material _G7.424.357.2. 610 616.885.307.845.624. 569. Define solid for elements ensiled material Define wall 321. *System *Nset. 108 14. 819. 769.589. 611.860.679.854. 734.223. _G7. 229 ý. 764 794.609.454.6.96. -------etc-------etc---882. 477.358.613. 636.509. 621.95.624. 620. 465. 337.645.104. 836. 809.884.306.329.379.46.1219. 842 848 9. 572.641.514.7. 1.575. elset-solid-1.759.883. 600. *Elset.614. 354.664.91.376.647. 338.218.577. 689. . 93. 639.278.12..429.646. 571. 352 485 -----etc---------etc--------883. 627. 654.273. 529. 330. 579. 332.404. 305. 814. 619.598. 414.629. 494. 739.228.754. 08 238. 651. 879 484.834. 649. 570.1220.382.203..383.466 884. 804. generate generate 321.308. 489.459. *Elset.704.1 284. 609.844.584.405. 836. 485. 618. 849. 601. 729.639.549. 444 449.859. 333.268.599. 719.644. 684 714. 408. 843. 605. 15.608.465 _G7.630. 248. ** ** nset-solid-1. 474.774.638. 724.97.580. 635.840. 643.606.839. 564.614. 263.550.749.481. 285.549.5. *Nset.886.198.744.

657.35.604.403.1 generate generate generate *Elset.855. 805.733.883.62.455.804.394.768.816.60.631.81.812.353.788.89 322.730.532 533.144.814.780.179.704 705.534.680.85.38.409.6.656.468. 773.554.881.164.406.473.807.398.72.393.776. 431.799.881. elset=_G15. 873.529.169. *Nset.42. 395.856 857.540.336.94.30.542.778 779.99. 343.288 293.432.383.441.815.801.582.410.808.808.139.508.606.412.479 480.813.781.530.75.154.438.31.633.558.129.413.544.792.360 377.308.543.174.323.432. nset=_G15.408.632.798.774.833.79.40. 429.363.772.771.797.546 547.344.439.545.658.708.608 629.482.784.480. raset= G13 5.765.758.83.770.434 435.341.429.318.8.104 109. nset=_G46.403.785.442.437.80.408.654.378.506.331.456 457.86. elset=_G46.358.475.854.1 *Nset.655.430.581. 467.779.882. nset=_G14 3.388.76.783. 84.379.357.769. 63.817.883.383.829.37.880.878 879.796.804.440. elset=_G13 33.800.61.298.124.333.782.535.401.134.806.89.381.474.34.479.149.819.876.787.555.877. output etc 74.782.537.368 373.775.605. 507.7.874.832.731.393.88.766.404 405.882.732.786.384.78.378.806.790.338.879.359.707.630. 755.*Nset.875.767.433. 789.757.82. 1.396.1 generate t 230 IýA .328.884 *Elset.325.803.681.414.706.682.465.348.36.536.505.579. 343.303.326.539.466.807.756.531.820.114.430. 41.313.358. 1.43.458.557.402.29.454.84. 1.77.793.481. 679.504.342.533.431.805.556.777.436.71.780 781.548.791.335.27. 159.87.433.538.783.483.411. 831.810 811.73 Define internal node and element sets for boundary conditions.830.858.1220.818.883 *Nset.323.883. 583.1220.380.1 *Elset.729.28.407.382. 541.754.481.580.59.809.119.794 795. 1.880.802.332.607.683.

389. name=smoo th 1.. 659. *Elset. *Porous *Material.856.1.443.482.694. *Drucker name=sand Prager 45.434. 853. 697.851.705. 664 670. 437.392.684. internal node and element sets 441. 431.462. 480 for 655. 696 702.849. nset-w Define 321.0. 688.463.*Nset. 852 858.699. 454.660. 338. 691.883.439.854. 438.667. 687.3 ** PROPERTIES ** INTERACTION ** Interaction.668.433.464. 430 436.679.658. *Density 1587.440. 447.0. 672.666. *Drucker 250.432.693.678. 231 . 859.682.455.456.331.685. 0. elset=w.451. 704.449..483.484. 680 686.3164.676.653. interaction.677. 703.444. 656.445.661.662. 681.857.689. generate 654.322.445.673.334.429.692.330.708.1.850.391. 335. 337. *Elastic constitutive 2.5 ** ** ** MATERIALS Define sand constitutive law *Material.442. 675. 671.479.700.657.663.390. *Friction 0. 860 413.002.690.674. 461.448. Prager Elastic Hardening 0.695.0.435. Interaction. 446 452. 707.706.701.340.683.339.0.450.698.669.855. *Surface name=fric Define friction properties ll-Property l2-Property tional 1. 453. 665. le+11. *Surface Interaction. name=steel Define law steel *Density 7500. *Surface name=_wal 1. boundary conditions. output etc 481. *Surface name=_wal 1.

112. elset- name=_G7 37.44.39. *Surface name=_G9 G9 S4.176.171.147.362.173.122.91.** ** BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ** Displacement ** BC: fixed Type: *Boundary _G14.107.132. ZSYMM *Elset.33. elset=_G9_S3 284.105.93.5 *Elset.388 S3.106. 177.2.50. 56.363.125. 384.98.57.131. 40.34.52.42.170.144.45 46.102 103.313. G7 Si.160. 145.85.286.178. elset=_G7_S1.123.159.128.168. *Elset.179.1 *Surface Definition.136.38. 334.99.36.287.114.143. S3 232 .101.154.312. 161. 126. 97.55. 158.120. Si _ _ *Elset. Definition.164.130.1 *Surface Definition.155.172. 113.140.134 135. 119.47.165. 110.88.361.156.152. Definition. elset Typed Define fixed and symmetry boundary conditions Typed _G6_SNEG.310.288.384.137. SNEG _G8_SNEG.86 87.166 167.51.41.84. *Surface name=_G8 generate 413.146.883.138.104.100.148. G8_SNEG 30.127.117.121.48. 129. elset=_G9_S4.108.385. name=_G6 generate contact surfaces SNEG G6SNEG. ** BC: symz Type: *Boundary G13.111.162.92. 53.359 360.31. 174.175.89.149.336.141.386.182 183. _G9 _ S4 311.133.83.335.35.309.139.58.150 151.157.90.115.169.408.338.2 ** BC: symx Type: *Boundary XSYMM _G12.54.49.163. _ * Elset. 142.95.109.124. generate Define 59.96.116.118 94.153.32.285. 387.43.180.337.181.

435.238.228.537. generate elset- 859.711.224. 561. Define contact surfaces 197. ** Interaction: Pair. type=ratio ge ostat ratio stress and in G7. 535.237.232.230.511.246.709.734.264.610.686.260.861. S2 ** Interaction: Pair.184.231.434. generate elset-_G11_S6.510.186 187. 836.735.813.834.736. 609.862. _G6 _ ** Interaction: Pair.266 267.21. 687.562.247. SPOS G10_SPOS.661.255.560 611.785.1 ic stored solid 233 .584.67 _ type=stress.217.662.250 251.216.536.263.1 Definition. 11.612.212.239.257.712 713.269.15.185.13.738.252.487.461.786.253.25.3.463.410. elset-_Gil_S3 409.G10 SPOS *Elset. 213.68.509.663.28.5. 275.838.484 485.278. S6 Gil _S G45_S2.404.488.883. 227.204. 761.534.248.811.271.191. -10.272.559. Elset.280.759.4.281. *initial solid-1.234 235.636 637.788 809.784.270.737. S3 6.462.214. 588.236. -0.635.268.812. 261.189.29. *Surface name=_Gll G11 S3. 685.190.276.223.199.563.810. 284.787.265.192. conditions.208.411. 437. 226. *Contact G8 G9.200.19. 513.202 203. 763. 9. *Contact name=_G45 Define contact base interaction=smooth G7.233.207.2. 24. 436.587.262.860. 258.193.486.638.10.22. 274.209.196.5 Definition. 277.586. 243.206. *Surface G45 S2. conditions. 194. 859.279.14. 512. 25. *Surface Definition.220.198.613.460.218 219. 242.201. 27. G7.18.256.12.688.23.282 283. _ * name-_G10 210. 8. 195. *_Elset.863 *Elset. 459. 229.438. 684.241.762.16 17.205.254. ** G10 interactions walll interaction=_walll-Pr wall2 interaction=_wall2-Pr opert y opert y Define voids *initial solid-1.585. 211. -10.412.7.710.273.215.249.835.0.244.225.6.221.188. elset1. 259. 760.413.659. 837.20. 245.660.240. *Contact G11.222.26.2.634.538.

_G45.0. RF. ** ** ** OUTPUT REQUESTS stress Request output *Restart. op=NEW. frequency=99999 *Node Output U. nlgeom. CDISP *Output. ALLFD. .8. ** ** LOADS grav. ALLPD. E. BOUNDARY le-05. SAT Output *Contact CSTRESS. ALLIE. freq=999999 *Node Print. overlay op=NEW. CF.1. _G46. pressure op=NEW balancing initial stress 234 ý'ý. Apply CONDITIONS gravity load ** ** BC: gravity Type: -1. Remove load that was ** ** Load: *Dsload. *End ** Step End of step Start next ** STEP: loading inc=1000. ALLVD. ETOTAL freq=999999 *El Print. ALLSE. ALLWK. POR *Element Output S.0 Velocity to op=new 9. write.. history. frequency=99999 ALLKE. *Energy ALLAE. field.** STEP: equil unsymm=YES ** *Step.00125.1. unsymm=YES analysis step Static step ** *Step. ensiled material *dload. 10. *Output. *Static ** ** 0. *Geostatic ** ** ** Start linear non- LOADS analysis step Geostatic is anal load Apply to balance initial ** Load: pressure *Dsload P. VOIDR. Output ALLCD.

CDISP *Output. ALLPD. *Friction 0.445. *contact *el file. ** ** walll interaction=_walll-Property Change friction coefficient on the walls from frictionless to µ=0. Output *Contact CSTRESS. ETOTAL freq=999999 *E1 Print. ALLVD. ** Interaction: *Change Friction. PE *End Step freq=999999 End analysis 235 . E. *Friction 0. frequency=99999 ALLKE.445.** Interaction: *Change Friction. *Energy ALLAE. Output ALLCD. CF output overlay op=NEW. elset=solid-l. *Node Output U. op=NEW. write. field.445 wa112 interaction=_wall2-Property OUTPUT REQUESTS Request ** *Restart. ALLSE. ALLWK. *Output. ALLFD. freq=999999 *Node Print. PE. freq=999999 file. history. frequency=99999 *Element Output PEMAG S. ALLIE. RF. PEEQ. _g7.

Von Mises stress in the silo wall U.235e-02 -2.514e+07 +4.0) z 3' ODB: eand.103e+07 +5. Mises U Defor 7 11: 26.192e-03 -6.065e+07 +5. S.Vertical deformation of the ensiled material 236 .308e+07 +2.579e-03 -1.514 e+06 +3. U2 +5.411e+07 +3.205e+07 +1.385e-03 -9.. Crit.Appendix D. Primary Var: U.860e+07 +3. 754) (Ave.: +6. -02 -1. U2 Deformed Var: U Deformation Scale F tor: +1.616e+07 J +6.512e-02 -3.121e+02 -1.916e-02 -2. Increment Var: Primary Var: Deformed 00 Figure D. 1 . odb ABAQUS loading 17: Step S. 2 .654e+07 +1.554e-02 -2.962e+07 +4. odb ABAQUS/Standard Apr 07 11: 26: 41 G(T Daylight Time 2002 Step: Step-2.832e-02 J 11 2 3' ODB: eand. 41 GMT Daylight Time 2002 Step: Step-2. -02 -3.193.596e-02 -1. loading 17: Step Time increment i.277.569e-07 -3.Example contour plots from ABAQUS The following plots show some example output from the finite element model in the form of contour plots. The model is that described in the input file in Appendix C.000e+00 rigure u.874e-02 -3. Miaea (fraction SN®G.757e+07 +2.

Crit. .258e-02 2.581e-02 1.000e+00 0 75%) 2.710e_02 2. -03 0.806e-02 1.000e+00 Figure D. 3 .: I2.032e-02 ýý- 4 2 3" `1 ODB: san d..129e-02 9.032e-03 6. odb ABAQUS/Stand loading 17: Step Time PEEQ U Deformation 07 11: 26: 41 GMT Daylight Time 2002 Step: Step-2.774e-03 4.516e-03 2.PEEQ (Ave.355e-02 1.484e-02 1. or: +1. Increment Primary Var: Deformed Var: - 1. Scale F.258.Plastic strains in the ensiled material 237 .

0080 0.0005 0. being the mid- height of the bin. 1 at a depth of 1. eo yioi ai (kg/m3) 0.Best fit of finite element predictions to the experimental sand data In Chapter 6 it was shown that the initial bulk density and the voids ratio could be calculated given different logarithmic bulk moduli.Values used for best fit exercise Results for the four models compared to the experimental results are shown in figure E.68 1606 1595 1576 0.65 0. This depth.0044 0. In order to further investigate the effect of the parametersof the porous elastic law a best fit exercisewas performed betweenthe experimentaldata and the finite elementresults. 1 .Appendix E. It was also shown that the parameters of the constitutive law could be changed yet still provide results consistentwith Janssentheory. relative effect of 238 .25m below the surface of the fill. is chosen to illustrate the form of the distribution and show the finite the the altering of parameters elementmodel. The work presented above finite be for to that the the normal element model could used provide showed results pressure distribution across the wall and this was compared to the experimental data.0020 0. I below (the values in italics are the original values for reference). The values used are presented in table E.66 0. A.71 1550 Table E. The original geometry was used to perform runs with material parameters that had been calculated using higher and lower values of logarithmic bulk modulus.

In order to reduce the sum of the least squares there must be a good fit in this area and therefore the value of A=0.25m depth Results are available for other levels and a least squares mathematical performed interpolated on the data.0005 provides the mathematically best fit.0080 A=0. in the corner). They merely show that the value must be small in order to obtain the best fit. This is because the least squares method tends to minimise the difference where the numbers are large (in this case. provide values at the appropriate points. function between each point to produce a smooth curve. it can be seen from figure E.15 0.0020 a=0. 1 that none of the for the pressure in the middle of the wall. In order to do this the finite fit has been element results must be so that corresponding for wall pressure can be obtained at the values Firstly.25 20 -_- A=0. 239 .0005 -Experiment 15 10 0 5 0 0 0. 1 . The need accurate results provide models for a good prediction in the middle if this method were to be used for design was discussed in Chapter 6.75 Figure E.6 0.3 Distance from corner 0. and secondly technique a cubic spline technique Linear interpolation assumes the data to be connected via straight lines and The cubic spline interpolation fits a values based on this assumption. However.Wall normal pressures across the wall from FEA and experiment at 1. This function is then used to Both of these best fit techniques fail to point to a conclusive value of A for sand.45 of bin (m) 0.0044 X=0. this was performed by using a (Schumaker. points where experimental linear interpolation 1981). provides data is available.

This transmits the pressure on the face to a semiconductor pressure gauge.2mm gap between face and wall section is charged with a silicone oil.7mm by 100mm diameter recess machined into the wall section. These sections were then replaced in the bin wall. 1 shows a wall pressure cell taken from the experimental rig used by Jarrett (1995). A 0. The front face of the cell remains very stiff with the deflection being measured at less than 1 micron per 100kPa. This technique aims to reduce any effect on the continuity of the wall caused by the installation of pressure cells.Wall pressure cell used in the work of Jarrett (1995) This cell was manufactured by Askegaard along with 3 others for use in the aforementioned work.5mm thick piece of mild steel forms the front face of the cell and this is placed into a 0. 240 . The cell face is welded to the centre of the recess and sealed at the edge by a rubber membrane.Investigation of wall pressure cells Figure F. 1 . The resulting 0. Figure F.Appendix F. Each cell is constructed from a 10mm thick piece of the bin wall. Sections of the wall of the bin were removed and the workings of the cell built into them.

In order to use cells of this type in a thin-wall a new design is required.These cells are filled with silicone oil via an aperture in the back of the cell. With this in mind it was be that the workings of a cell proposed machined into the back of the wall.2 shows the calibration of one of these types of cell.3799x + 0. The cells were charged with oil and then calibrated using air pressure. Installation in the thin lead to erroneous results due to the drastically increased local stiffness in would wall the region of the cell. Pervious work has shown that wall cells must be installed flush with the wall in order that the results they provide are as accurateas possible(ref). This agrees with the original specification supplied with the cells.99 µV per volt excitation figure kPa. This 241 . Figure F. The pressure transducer is wired in a full bridge configuration and the excitation voltage is set to 10V. The oil gap is evacuated using a vacuum pump and fresh oil is drawn into the cell when the pump is turned off. The presence of any air (which is highly compressible) in the cell will lead to non-linear behaviour of the cell making it useless. per These cells are not suitable for use in a thin-walled silo model.Calibration of a wall pressure cell The best fit straight line to the readings gives a value of 37. 6 5- p1 3y = 0. 2 .9682 002468 Pressure (kPa) 10 Figure F.

was also a the system and therefore once the load was removed the readings could not be inducedto return to zero. Again. The overall bending of the plate was shown to induce a large reading into the cell and when pressurised hysteresis in large There of amount the readings obtained were non-linear. wall pressures a Therefore. A circular recess 1. 3 shows the back of the cell. 242 . 7 .1mm deep and 50mm diameter was machined into a plate of overall thickness 1.6mm.would preserve the smooth continuity of the wall inside the bin. the is bridge full in is the transducer calibration and configuration a wired pressure performed using air pressure. This allows another piece of plate to be installed in the back leaving a gap for the oil.the use of the free field cells was deemedmost suitable. Figure F. A step of 0. 3 . More researchin this area could lead to a viable method for directly determiningthe is but in thin-walled this silo outside the scope of this project. Unfortunately this cell was unable to provide any useful results. A point to allow the oil into the cell and a pressure transducer were mounted onto the backing plate and the whole piece glued into the recess.3mm was left around the circumference.Rear view of cell installed in thin-wall The cell is charged with oil in a similar fashion to the previous cells.4 Figure F.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times