by Richard J. Goodey
by Richard J. Goodey
Brunel University
September 2002
OF THESES
NAME:..'
.C.
k1R tZ
"C0 17r C NG t N t nl
Si lOS
7c uLi<
r\ EcuAt) CAL
i2= C IqNG V1AiZ
f4A. 3f S cy1z
te
F_ /kcm O I
SL11
OF
,
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.
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:
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 thinwalled 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 elasticplastic material silo structure. order to account for large deformations that can occur in a thinwalled 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 scalethinwalled metal silo was constructedand pressuremeasurements on filling with pea gravel made. These are compared to predictions made by the finite
element model.
Acknowledgements
There are of course a number of people to whom I would like to express my gratitude. First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor,Mr Chris Brown for providing me with guidance (and funding) throughout the duration of my research. I would also like to thank him for giving me the opportunity of studying for a Ph.D. in the first place. Secondly, I must thank ProfessorMichael Rotter of Edinburgh University for his drawn from this work. I must also mention Professor Jurgen with assistance papers Nielsen for his guidance at the onset of this project. Thanks also to my second supervisors,ProfessorLes Henshalland ProfessorLuiz Wrobel. This researchwould not have beenpossible without the assistance of the technicians in the department. Many thanks go to Keith Withers, Bob Webb, John and staff Langdon, and Brian Dear. There has also been a good numberof reprobateswho I have crossedpaths with and have made the whole researchexperience more enjoyable. My thanks to Dr Richard Torrens, Dr Anthony Morgan, Dr ChangJiangWang and Dave Simpson to mention but a few. Thanks must go to my parentsfor their support and hard cash over the large number
in fulltime have I to managed stay education. of years
Finally, 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.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract Acknowledgements Notation List of figures
List of tables
i ii ix xi
xvi
1 2 4 5
2.1.1Planform
2.1.2 Height to width ratio 2.1.3 Construction materials
2.1.4 Flow type
6
6 6
6
2.2 Silos studied 3. Stressesand loads in the ensiled material and the silo structure 3.1 Silo loads 3.2 Stressstatein the stored solid 3.2.1 Interaction between silo and contents 3.3 Calculationsfor wall pressures 3.3.1 Theory of Janssen 3.3.2 Theory of Reimbert and Reimbert 3.3.3 Theory for squat silos 3.4 Assumptionsof theories 3.5 Evaluation of pressurecoefficient k 3.6 Dischargepressures 3.7 Other loading considerations 3.7.1 Wind loading
8 10 10 11 12 12 13 16 20 21 22 25 25 26
26 26
111
3.8 Application of theoriesto rectangular planform silos 3.9 Silo response 3.9.1 Load supportingactionsin silos structures 3.10 Membrane actionsin rectangular plates 3.10.1 Generalequationsfor rectangularplates 3.10.1.1 Small deflectiontheory 3.10.1.2 Large deflectiontheory 3.10.1.3 Comparisonof small and large deflection theory for plate problems 3.10.2 Generalnumerical techniques
3.11 Structural considerations
27 27 27 28 30 31 31
31 32
32
3.12 Rectangularbin design 3.13 Summary 4. Numerical methods for the prediction of silo wall pressures 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Available numerical techniques 4.2.1 Finite differencemethod 4.2.2 Finite elementmethod 4.2.3 Boundary elementmethod 4.2.4 Discrete elementmethod 4.3 Choice of numerical techniquefor use in the current project
4.4 Previous application of the finite element method to silo problems
34 34 36 36 36 37 37 38 38 39
39
39
41
4.5 Summary
5. The finite element method applied to silo problems 5.1 Analysis type 5.1.1 Sourcesof nonlinearity 5.1.2 Obtaining a solution in nonlinear finite element analysis
42
44 44 46
46
iv
5.1.3 Nonlinearity in silo problems 5.1.3.1Large deformations 5.1.3.2Contact analysis 5.2 Constitutive modelsto describe material behaviour 5.2.1 Propertiesof granular bulk solids 5.2.2 Determining granular bulk solids properties for finite elementanalysis 5.3 Material constitutive laws for use in the current work 5.3.1 Elastic laws 5.3.2 Nonelastic laws 5.3.3 Elasticplastic laws 5.4 Constitutive laws available in ABAQUS 5.4.1 Linear elastic law 5.4.2 Porouselastic law 5.4.3 MohrCoulomb law 5.4.3.1Plastic potential and flow rule 5.4.3.2MohrCoulomb criteria in threedimensional stressspace 5.4.4 DruckerPragerlaw 5.5 Summary 6. Calibration and validation of material constitutive laws
6.1 Introduction 6.2 Axisymmetric model  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
69 70
6.4.1Linearelasticlaw
6.4.1.1Poissonsratio as the controlling factor in the linear elastic model 6.4.2 Porouselastic model 6.5 Elastic/plasticmodels
70
72 76 83
6.5.1 Application of plasticity criteria to the axisymmetric model 6.6 Threedimensionalmodels 6.6.1 Further validation distribution 6.6.2 Comparisonwith Janssen pressure 6.6.3 Comparison with experimentalsanddata 6.6.4 Modelling of pea gravel 6.6.5 Comparisonto Lahlouh et al's (1995) experimental data 6.6.6 Best fit of finite elementresultsto experimentaldata 6.7 Onedimensionalconsolidation testson the two granularbulk solids 6.8 Conclusions and choice of valuesfor PEDPmodel for Leighton Buzzard sandand pea gravel 7. The effect of the boundary condition at the baseof the axisymmetric bin 7.1 Flatbottomed axisymmetric bin 7.1.1 Frictionless basecondition
7.1.2 Frictional base condition
83 85 86 89 91 94
95 97
97
102
7.1.3 Baseand wall not connected 7.2 Horizontal and vertical stressin the storedsolid
7.3 Strain in the stored material 7.4 Summary of flatbottomed model
109 111
114 116
7.5 Hopper basecondition in the hopper 7.5.1 Pressures 7.6 Conclusion 8. Further investigation of the geometry of Lahlouh et at (1995) 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Patternsof vertical stressin the storedmaterial 8.2.1 Average and local valuesof k 8.3 Predictive law for wall normal pressures
vi
8.3.1 Comparisonto experimentalresults in sand 8.3.2 Comparisonto experimentalresults in gravel 8.4 Comparisonwith finite elementresults 8.5 Summary 8.6 Finite elementpredictionsfor an idealised wheat distribution 8.6.1 Comparisonto Janssen 8.6.2 Distribution of pressureacrossthe wall 8.6.3 Patternsof vertical stressin the solid 8.6.4Average and local values of k in the solid 8.6.5 Comparisonwith predictive law 8.7 Summary
9. Parametric study of a square planform silo
134 138 142 144 145 145 146 147 147 149 150
152
9.1 Introduction 9.2 Type of storedmaterial 9.2.1 Relative stiffnessbetweenwall and stored solid
in thewall 9.2.2Deformations
9.3 Planform 9.3.1 Squareplanform silo with 20mm thick wall
9.3.2 Stiffness of ensiled material
158
159 159
164
9.4 Wall thickness 9.5 Relative stiffness of silo wall and ensiled material
9.5.1 Effect of large deformations in the wall 9.6 Variation of height of silo
166 172
173 174
176 178
178
180 181
182
183 183
vi'
10.2.3.1Wall pressurecells 10.2.3.2Free field cells 10.3 Finite elementpredictions of the experimentalrig 10.4 Experimental results 10.4.1 Pressures acrossthe centreline 10.4.2 Comparisonwith predictive law 10.4.3 Strain in the silo wall 10.5 Summary 11. Rectangular planform silos 11.1 Limitations to this study
11.2 Current guidance available
183 184 185 187 188 188 190 191 192 192
193
11.3 Rigid walled silo 11.4 Variation of planform ratio 11.5 Variation of wall thickness
11.6Summary
12. Conclusions and further work 12.1 Summary of main conclusions 12.2 Further work
References Publications
205
206 207 209
210 223
224
226 228
Appendix D Example contour plot output from ABAQUS Appendix E Best fit of finite element predictions to the experimental
236
sand data
Appendix F Investigation of wall pressure cells
238
240
viii
Notation
(A dot abovea symbol indicatesa rate (eg. 4. = directional strain rate)) A a b C Co c D e G H h,, Il J2 Je 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, 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
t U v w Y y a a' y E ES E, cj x 1%
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 DruckerPrager 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
yr
Dilation angle
List of figures
distribution in a deep Figure 2.1  Comparisonof a hydrostaticdistribution and a Janssen silo Figure 2.2  Figure usedto determinethe flow type in a silo (from ENV 19914 (1995)) Figure 2.3  Planform shapes of silos Figure 3.1  Loads exertedon the silo structurefrom the ensiledmaterial Figure 3.2 Notation usedfor silo geometry Figure 33 Equilibrium considerationfor Janssen theory 4 7 8 10 13 14
16
18
20 24 28 30 33 44 45 45 48 52 52 53 54 55 59 60 61
63
64 65
66 68 69
xi
Figure 6.3  Wall normal pressureas calculatedfrom linear elastic constitutive law Figure 6.4  Comparisonsbetween finite elementand Janssen predictions for a rangeof materials Figure 6.5  The effect of changing the elastic stiffness in the axisymmetric bin Figure 6.6  Wall normal pressureas calculatedfrom the porous elastic constitutive law Figure 6.7  The effect of changing the initial stressin the porous elastic model Figure 6.8  Simplified figure to show compressionof solid in a typical silo Figure 6.9  Finite element results as determinedby the recalibratedporous elasticmodel Figure 6.10  The effect of using different initial conditions in the porous elastic model
72
74 75 77 78 79 81 82
87 88 89 90
92
93 95
111
X11
Figure 7.8  Effective coefficient of wall friction in the sandmodel from the model with springsupported base Figure 7.9  Wall normal pressures Figure 7.10  Vertical straincontourplot in axisymmetricmodel Figure 7.11  Radial strain contourplot in axisymmetricmodel Figure 7.12  Mechanismto accountfor observedendeffect Figure 7.13  Effect of small angledhopper on the wall normal pressureprediction Figure 7.14  The wall normal pressure abovethe transition with a 45 concentrichopper Figure 7.15  Wall normal pressure nearthe baseof the model with a hopper Figure 7.16  Comparisonof analysiswith LE and PEDP constitutive laws
Figure 7.17 The effectof altering theangleof thehopper the on pressures above
transition Figure 7.18  The effect on wall pressures abovethe transition of a rigid hopper wall Figure 7.19 Normal pressurein hoppersof varying angles Figure 7.20  Deformation of the hopperwall Figure 7.21  Effect on hopperwall pressurepredictionsof varying wall stiffness Figure 7.22  Effective coefficient of friction in hoppersof different angle Figure 8.1  Proposedarchingmechanism of Rotter et al (2002) in rectangularsilo Figure 8.2  Patternsof vertical stressat 1m and 2m below the surfaceof the solid Figure 83  Local and averagevaluesof k in sand Figure 8.4  Local and averagevaluesof k in gravel
Figure 8.5  Wall pressure distributions from sand experiments and predictive law
121 122 123 123 124 125 128 129 131 132
135
136
Lahlouh et al (1995) Figure 8.8  Predicted distribution resulting from best fit value of a comparedto original experimentaldatafor sand(Lahlouh et a!, 1995) Figure 8.9  Wall pressuredistributionsfrom gravel experimentsand predictive law distribution Figure 8.10  Best fit valuesof pmagainstexperimentaldata and Janssen Figure 8.11  The variation of the parametera with depth in gravel in the geometry of Lahlouh et al (1995)
137
140
gravel
Figure 8.15  ComparisonbetweenFEA results and predictive law of Rotter et al (2002)
143
144
X111
Figure 8.16  Comparisonto Janssendistribution in wheat Figure 8.17  Wall normal pressuredistribution acrossthe wall in wheat Figure 8.18  Patternof vertical stress in wheat lm from the surfaceof the solid Figure 8.19  Local and averagevalues of k in wheat Figure 8.20 a determinedfrom finite elementmethod in wheat Figure 8.21  Comparisonof pressuresacrossthe wall from finite elementmodel and predictive law in wheat Figure 9.1  Wall normal pressuresin deep squareplanform bin Figure 9.2  Variation of a with depth in different materials Figure 9.3  Normal deformations(w/t) down the centreline of the bin wall Figure 9.4  Wall normal pressuresfor sand in squareplanform silos Figure 9.5  Wall normal pressuresfor gravel in squareplanform silos Figure 9.6  Wall normal pressuresfor wheat in squareplanform silos Figure 9.7  Comparisonof Janssenand FEA prediction in 3m squareplanform bin with 100mmthick wall Figure 9.8  Coefficient a for sand in the squareplanform bins Figure 9.9  Coefficient a for gravel in the squareplanform bins Figure 9.10  Coefficient a for wheat in the squareplanform bins Figure 9.11  Distribution of pressure above the transition Figure 9.12  Relationshipbetween wall length and elastic stiffness of stored material Figure 9.13  Relationshipbetweenwall length and a Figure 9.14  Averagenormal wall pressuresdown the depth of a 1.5m squareplanform bin with varying wall thickness(sand fill) Figure 9.15  Averagenormal wall pressuresdown the depth of a 1.5m squareplanform bin with varying wall thickness(gravel fill) Figure 9.16  Averagenormal wall pressuresdown the depth of a 1.5m squareplanform bin with varying wall thickness(wheat fill) Figure 9.17  Variation of a with depth in bins of varying wall thickness (sand) Figure 9.18  Variation of a with depth in bins of varying wall thickness(gravel) Figure 9.19  Variation of a with depth in bins of varying wall thickness(wheat) Figure 9.20  Variation of a at 6m depth with wall thickness Figure 9.21  Comparisonof EJL IFt3 with a in sand, gravel and wheat Figure 9.22  Effect of large deformations on the value of a Figure 9.23  Comparisonof results obtained in al Omdeepbin and 5m deep bin (sand
167
168
fill)
175
176
xiv
Figure 10.1  Overall view of the experimentalsilo structure Figure 10.2  Internal view of the filler box showingdischargeholes Figure 103  The chute and conveyor for emptyingthe experimentalsilo rig Figure 10.4  Wall normal deflectionscalculatedfrom FEA under different loading conditions Figure 10.5  Principle of wall pressurecell Figure 10.6  Free field cell of the type designed by Askegaard(1978) Figure 10.7 Finite elementand Janssen predictionsof the meanpressurein the experimentalrig
186
Figure 10.8 Finite element thewall in the experimental of pressure prediction across rig
in the model silo from free field cells and finite elementmodel Figure 10.9  Pressures Figure 10.10 Predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) fitted to experimentalresults Figure 10.11 Horizontal and vertical strain down the centrelineof the bin wall Figure 11.1 Notation for rectangularplanform silos Figure 11.2  Ratio of pressures on long side to short side (after Reimbert) Figure 113  Wall normal pressurepredictionsin a rectangularplanform silo in a 2: 1 planfomi ratio bin comparedto Figure 11.4  Long and short wall pressures
187
188 189 190 192 194 195
196
197 198 199 199 200 201 201 202
202
Figure 11.14  Wall normal pressurein a 2: 1 planform ratio silo (wheat fill) Figure 11.15 Redistribution of wall normal stressin a rectangularbin of planform ratio 1.5:1
203
204
xv
List of tables
in a rectangularplate as calculated from large and small deflection Table 3.1  Stresses theories Table 3.2  Finite elementsolution to the large and small deflection rectangularplate Table 5.1  Somepropertiesof granular bulk solids Table 6.1  Values of bulk density for Leighton Buzzard sand from Lahlouh et al (1995) Table 6.2  Propertiesof various granular bulk solids as given by Rotter (2001) Table 6.3  Propertiesof granularbulk solids for use in the linear elastic model 31 32 51 71 73 73
law Table6.4 Values to calibrate the porouselasticconstitutive used Table6.5 Calculation of.%frominitial andfinal densities
(in kPa) in the experimental silo from free field cells in Table 6.6  Wall normal pressures sand(Lahlouh et al, 1995) Table 6.7  Propertiesof pea gravel measuredby Lahlouh et al (1995) Table 6.8  Resultsfrom consolidation tests on sand and gravel Table 6.9  Final propertiesusedfor the materials in the finite element model Table 9.1  Equivalent elastic stiffness of the three materials Table 9.2  Equivalent elastic stiffness in the squareplanform bins Table 9.3  Equivalent elastic stiffness with varying wall thickness Table 10.1 Resultsfrom sheartests of different adhesives Table 10.2 Values of a and p. determined from the predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) for Table 11.1 Definitions accordingto EN19914 (Note: d,, rectangular silos) b Table 11.2  Length of walls in rectangular planform silo models
76 80
92 94 101 103 157 164 170 181 189 193 198
xvi
Chapter 1 Introduction
In the modem industrial environment there are many situations where granular bulk solids need to be stored. Typical granular bulk solids include corn, plastic pellets for a production line or coal to feed furnaces. The structuresusedto hold thesematerials are known as silos, although they are occasionallyreferredto as bunkers(particularly in to the type typically to ground supported, store coal squat used when referring power stations). 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, 1987). year and each alone Silos are most commonly found in circular planform due to the structural efficiency (Trahair, 1985). Circular from loads the type the this planform structures support of by mainly membrane actions. They are axisymmetric, potentially material ensiled design the process (Rotter, 1985a)but this can lead to a weak structure simplifying bending (Rotter, 1985b). 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. largely been has ignored but because it is difficult to assessthe this structure,
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. 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. Advantageously however, 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. predict suitably
Of most importance to structural designersare the (horizontal and vertical) pressures There the silo are severaltheoriesthat are commonly used to predict wall. acting on (Janssen, 1895; Reimbert The Reimbert, 1976). and resulting pressures are pressures
then usually multiplied by some factor of safety in order to account for any excess pressurethat may occur during filling or discharge. Once these are ascertainedit is then a matter of using appropriate methodology to design the silo for strength, stiffness and stability. 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, 1983). It is also obvious that rectangular structuresdo not have rotational symmetry and therefore the available theories have to be adapted to suit. This adaptation is unsatisfactory because it makes further assumptionswhich may havea deleteriouseffect upon the economy of any rectangular silo design. Structures in have tend to this way an excess of stiffness; they use thick plates and a produced large number of external and internal stiffeners. This increasesthe weight of the silo be improved designs by These hence the could cost. allowing a certain amount and of deformation to occur in the wall of the silo which in turn stiffens the plate by membraneactions.
In previous work (Jarrett, 1991; Lahlouh et al, 1995) the emphasis was on on measured pressures.
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,
" " By determining the effect of a very flexible, thin silo wall on wall pressures, By comparing experimental results with predictive theories, and
"
1.1 Thesis summary The work presented in this thesis consists of twelve chapters of which this introduction is the first.
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. Chapter 3 describessome of the methods currently usedto assess the loads on, and responses of silo structures. Chapter 4 introduces various numerical methods that can be applied to problems of the type studied in this work. It goeson to describethe choice of the finite element method used for the remainderof the study. Chapter5 describes the finite element method with respectto silo problemsoutlining solution techniques and modelling methodsused. Chapter 6 describes the initial investigation and validation of the finite element includes determination laws in This of parameters used constitutive various model. that can describe granular materials of the type storedin silos. This is achievedby a interpretation of of experimental data, comparisonwith current theory combination and comparison with previous experimental work (Lahlouh et al, 1995). 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.
Chapter 8 introduces a two parameter predictive law conceived by Rotter et al (2002). distribution This law aims to describe the experimentally observed nonuniform of wall pressure at a given depth in the ensiled material. and finite element results. The law is
compared to experimental
Chapter 9 describes a
predictive law is a good fit to finite element results for a number of geometrically different bins. Chapter 10 describes an experiment performed on a thinwalled
square planform silo and makes comparisons with the predictive law and the finite element model. 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.
interaction between the stored solid and the structure and sensitivity to geometric imperfections. The wall pressures in silos were originally assumed to be equivalent to hydrostatic (fluid) pressures. Early experiments by Roberts (1882; 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. Janssen (1895) confirmed this and
published his still widely used theory that accounts for this phenomenon. Soon after, Airy (1897) published a second theory to compute wall pressures but this is not in distribution Janssen's. A Janssen for normal pressure typical as such widespread use down the depth of a silo wall is shown in figure 2.1, along with the hydrostatic distribution that was previously assumed to be correct.
0
2 Janssen distribution
Hydrostatic 4 distribWon
10
0 20 40 60 Horizontal 80 100 120 (kPa) 140 160 180 wall pressure
Figure 2.1  Comparison of a hydrostatic distribution and a Janssen distribution in a deep silo
It is obvious that the pressurepredicted by the Janssentheory is substantially lower than the hydrostatic distribution. The reason for this observed phenomenon is that granular materials have shear strength (i. e. they can support some of their own weight) and friction exists at the interface of the wall and the material. This leads to the development of an equilibrium betweenthe weight of the solid and the supporting wall friction. The observation of this property has led to the proposal of many theories in the field of soil mechanics, several of which are specifically for the in However of pressures silos. 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), those developed by Reimbert and Reimbert (1976) from empirical data and earth pressure theories such as Coulomb's (1776). 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), that this is not the case for rectangular emphasised recently This research showed that when the wall is flexible an arch can form silos. planform in the granular solid over the deforming wall leading to lower pressures in the middle higher the pressures near rigid, supporting boundaries. This is in contrast and wall of to Janssen's original postulation that a rectangular planform silo might experience higher pressuresat the midside of the wall and lower pressures in the comers.
2.1 Definitions
There are several terms used in this thesis that require definition. The word silo
describes the entire structure. The vertical walled section of this is usually referred to as the bin or box, while the angled section at the base is referred to as the hopper. Silos are further classified according to their planform, height to width ratio, the The definitions
from they and the type of flow they exhibit. are constructed material ENV 19914 (1995). the with current consistent are given
2.1.1 Planform Currently, silos most commonly occur in either circular or rectangular planform. Other planforms are occasionally used and some were investigatedby Reimbert and Reimbert (1976). Circular planform silos are efficient structuresthat carry most of their loads by membrane (hoop) actions. As this form of silo is the most common, the majority of research activity is not unreasonablydirected towards their study. Rectangular planform structures may however, 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.
2.1.2 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). A deep bin obviously has a ratio greater than this
in larger usually used applications such as the storage of cement are more structures Concrete structures are obviously designed with permanency grain. clinker, coal and in mind whereas steel structures can be easily constructed, moved, recycled etc. Recently, large concrete designs have been replaced by batches of squat steel silos. The design and testing of concrete structures has been well reported (Eibl, 1998) and in be be this although covered project, some will made to very stiff reference will not be be like in behaviour. to could considered concrete which structures
2.1.4 Flow type Consideration must be given to the type of flow experiencedin a silo. The type of flow leads to different pressure regimes within the silo contents and therefore different pressures on the silo wall (Nielsen, 1998). Flow types can be generally
classified as massflow and funnel flow (sometimesknown as core or internal flow). In massflow, the ensiledmaterial moves down the silo as one during discharge. In funnel flow, the material tends to flow down a central flow channel while the outer material remains stationary. 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 2.2 (ENV 19914,1995).
g
a
60
50
% Ft f and Floht l %`
asp j 9
50
g 40 S 30 li 3: = 2D[ 10 0
c 40 30
FuioeFFkw
90 80
40 30
2D 40 I. `m 10 1 Lb=Flow L 0 90 80 70 60
50
40
30
Angle of 'i
tion of 2opperwaUct
Figure 2.2  Figure used to determine the flow type in a silo (from ENV 19914 (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. experience more likely
starting point in the structural design process. Mass flow may be deemed necessary in food processes because they operate on a first in/first out principle, thus avoiding funnel flow. associated with stagnant zones in a low volume production situation. This stagnant food material could spoil
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. Another disadvantage is that mass flow silos wear heavily on the wall due to the
abrasive effect of the granular bulk solid sliding down the wall and this must be factoredinto the design. 2.2 Silos studied This thesis is concerned with metal, rectangular planform, thinwalled silos. Metal in silos appear many different planforms: circular, rectangular, square and hexagonal. They can be tall or squat, ground supported or elevatedon columns. Somedifferent forms of silo are shown in figure 2.3.
abc
Figure 2.3  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. Figure diagram 2.3(a) the wall pressures of shows a of a typical assessment be It basic form that the can seen silo. of this type of silo cylindrical structural metal, is a thin, axisymmetric shell of revolution making the stressin the structurerelatively This the circumference. around makes the analysis of the structureslightly uniform for simple, unstiffened cases. However, silos are regularly stiffened in some easier
way and when considering a rectangularplanform silo their natural shape contains difficult. the that of stress such as corners make prediction more stressraisers Figure 2.3(b) shows the basic layout of a rectangularplanform structure of the type that is to be consideredin this project. Each form of silo has its own advantagesand disadvantages. Rectangularplanform silos can be easily constructed from plate is fabrication less there work required prior to construction on site. material, meaning However, rectangularplanform silos are not as efficient structures as circular ones (section 3.10). Rectangular becausethey do not take advantage of membranestresses structures may also make more use of available groundspace (because they tessellate),which may be important in applicationswhere spaceis limited. It is noted that the silos studied in this project are different from the type shown in figure 2.3(c), which is known as a trough bunker. 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, 2D the stressstate and exhibit plane walls) parallel extending is not a function of the coordinateperpendicularto the plane of flow).
Chapter 3 Stresses and loads in the ensiled material and the silo structure
3.1 Silo loads Silos are subjected to a number of load cases of various load conditions. 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. frictional forces in figure 3.1. tractive shown and are pressurecomponentsand
Ph 
PwJ Pv
UPfl\
Pt
Figure 3.1  Loads exerted on the silo structure from the ensiled material
Wall pressurescan be influenced by a number of factors including the silo geometry, loads There friction that type of other a of stored material. are also number and wall loading, 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.
10
3.2 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, 1984). Thesedefine the point of active failure (causedby expansion of the material) and passive failure (causedby compression of the material). However, 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.
This behaviour of stored materials is known to affect the pressures exerted on the follows (Nielsen, 1983). Therefore it that the overall stress structure of a silo walls influences the wall pressures. There are three the that assumes stored material state by designers; filling, that are usually considered static and wall of pressure categories discharge. 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), and so consideration is normally only is The further by basing the to two often states. problem stress simplified given evaluation of discharge pressures on the static/filling pressures which are multiplied by some predetermined factor that accounts for the apparent excess pressure. This factor is usually determined from codes or design guides (ENV 19914,1995; 1055,1987). DIN
field Walters, discharge 1956; in (Nanninga, the the upon onset of stress changes 1973a,b) and were originally obtained empirically. 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. This is before any
be loadings. This to appear a considerable would consideration of any other external shortcoming given the variability of experimentally observed static pressures
(Nielsen, 1979; Nielsen and Anderson, 1982; Harden et al, 1984) and discharge (Nielsen, 1998). pressures
11
The stress state (and hence the wall pressures) is also greatly affected by the eccentricity of the fill and discharge processes. During filling it is unlikely that material will be depositedfrom directly above the bin in the centre. It is more likely that material will be travelling up a conveyer and will be deposited into the bin towards one side, possibly impacting on the opposite wall in the case of a slender silo. 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, 2001). Similarly, 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, 1986). asymmetricpressures 3.2.1 Interaction between silo and contents The pressureexertedon the silo wall is dependenton the interaction betweenthe wall and the stored bulk solid. This is especially so when the wall is flexible in a systematicway, as in a rectangular planform silo. Little work is currently available, 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, 1990; silo cylindrical Mahmoud and AbdelSayed, 1981). Others have performed studies of the silomaterial interaction (Emanuel et al, 1983; Ibrahim and Dickenson, 1983). Most of thesestudieshave used a twodimensional finite element model. In order to improve the study of this phenomenona threedimensional model would be the most suitable but until recently this would have been impractical due to the constraints of computer systems. Jarrett et al (1995), 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. 3.3 Calculations for wall pressures There are a number of theories available for the prediction of the wall pressures and
12
Gaylord, 1984). Most of these theories are applicable to cylindrical silos because these structurescan be reducedto two dimensionsby the assumptionof axisymmetry. 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, 1983). However, as there are not any specific formulae for this type of calculation, the cylindrical theories are usually applied to rectangular planform structures, although these are sometimes modified slightly to take account of length the the ratio of of the side walls. Only the most commonly parameterssuch as used theories will be assessedhere, along with their assumptionsand suitability towards the current problem. Figure 3.2 showsthe notation used for the geometry of the silo in the forthcoming sections.
3.3.1 Theory of Janssen Pressuresin deep silos of circular planform are usually calculated by the theory of Janssen(1895). This is derived by consideringthe equilibrium of a horizontal slice of material in the silo as shown in figure 3.3.
13
r 'gurr
7.2  Jyuiuua
Iuua cuuDlucI
auvu
av
uau"cu
ruvul
Summation and integration of these forces yields the following equation for the in vertical pressure the solid:
Pv= yk (1er Y/R)
(3.1)
Wherey= bulk density of the stored material, R= A/C = hydraulic radius of the silo, friction, k= horizontal the to vertical stressand the wall ratio of of coefficient = is be level. The depth the to the the above section, of solid which assumed y= in formula be Appendix A. derivation this can seen of outline The Janssenformula makes a number of assumptions that have an effect on the of the model. 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
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 19914,1995; DIN 1055,1987). The pressurecoefficient, k, relatesthe horizontal to vertical stressin the solid: Ph k= PV (3.2)
The usefulness of the Janssen theory is therefore dependant on the method used to assess this coefficient, k, and this is discussed further in section 3.5. The use of the hydraulic radius of a bin (rather than the circumference or the diameter) allows the designer to account for noncircular crosssections, but the resulting solution is still two dimensional and therefore gives no indication about the pressure distribution bin depth. is It be therefore to at any given commonly noncircular assumed a across uniform. figure 3.4. A typical Janssen distribution for wall normal pressures (Ph) is shown in
15
Figure 3.4 A
It can be seen that at great depth the pressures tend to an asymptotic value. This be by calculated can reducing the exponential component of value asymptotic horizontal 3.1 the to maximum and vertical pressures equal to making zero equation 3.5 3.4 respectively. and equations (3.4)
Pn=yR
yR pv _ uk ,
3.3.2 Theory of Reimbert and Reimbert
(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. 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. It is based on the calculation of what is termed the "characteristic abscissa". For
16
(P1
12 1J
(3.6)
Where P. yD
It may be noted that this value is comparable to the maximum value given by the 3.4). (equation Janssen equation And A is the "characteristicabscissa"given by: A=Dk 4uk (3.8) 3
D= diameterof silo and h, = height of cone of surcharge. The value of k taken in the original formulae was the Rankine active ratio (seebelow, be It 3.17). 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). a major deficiency in the Janssen accommodatean theory as the surface boundary condition is clearly incorrect. A conical surcharge must lead to a finite value of vertical stresswhere the solid first makes contact with the wall. However, the wall normal pressureat this point must be zero and therefore the value of k must also be zero. 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 3.3.3. 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 3.5).
17
5
10
E
t 15
 20
 Janssen distribution
Reimbart and Reimbart
02468 Horizontal wall pressure (kPa) Figure 3.5  Comparison of Janssen and Reimbert theories in a similarly
10
The value of k taken here was that of the Rankine active ratio. The choice of this ratio is discussed in further detail in section 3.5. The graph clearly shows that both methods tend towards an asymptote at a great depth and the maximum value is identical. 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. the requirement maintained). equilibrium silo e. 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, (3.9)
Ph =P
.b
1
18
A'
b rpk
he 3
(3.11)
Ph=P..
1
y AZ
Where Pm.
is given by: e
1 7h P. a =4p
With:
2ba  b2 a
(3.13)
b,
(3.14)
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. ratio where
19
o
2
3
'`t S I6
7 8 9 +a
10
02468 Wall normal pressure (kPa) 10 12 14
Figure 3.6  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. 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. 3.3.3 Theories for squat silos The above theories are most suited to deep bins but when the height to diameter ratio less becomes than about 1.5 then the silo can be referred to as squat although of a silo H/D values of between 1 and 1.5 are defined as intermediate by the Eurocode (ENV 19914,1995). There is even some debate about this definition with other limiting
values being proposed (Fischer, 1966), for example: fAH<_ 1.5, Where H is the height of the silo and A the crosssectional area. Janssen, 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. The (3.16)
Reimbert and Reimbert theory makes an allowance for this by incorporating the
20
into height of the surcharge the equationbut Janssentheory assumesa level fill cone and must thereforebe modified to account for the surcharge. If Janssentheory is to be used for squat silos then the origin of the first contact is moved to create an equivalent surface. The height of this surfaceis calculated by considering the height by the fill and the surcharge. It of a level fill given the volume of solid encompassed is therefore dependanton the silo geometry and the angle of the surcharge. This at the first wall contact. method leadsto nonzeropressures To better calculate the pressuresin squat silos, designers can use an earth pressure theory such as those of Coulomb (1776) or Rankine (1857). However, there are difficulties with using these. Rankine's theory assumes that the stored material be infinitely therefore should applied to circular or rectangular silos. 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. 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; (Mayniel, MullerBreslau, 1906). MullerBreslau 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). However, the volume of sloping is by its limited incorporation hence the size silo and of the sloping on surcharge backfill tends to overestimatethe pressureson the wall and a more accurate answer from by is level fill. be this theory the assuming surface a obtained may It is apparentthat more work needsto be directed towards squat structuresin order to for loads. 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. 3.4 Assumptions of theories The above describedtheories make a number of assumptions of which some have
been mentioned. There are a great number of implied assumptions that can affect the
21
important the the theories most and of theseare now set accuracyand usefulness of out. 1. Wall friction is assumedto be constant down the depth of the bin. This may not always be the case as relative movement betweenthe wall and solid can affect the value of . 2. The stored material is incompressible, homogeneous and isotropic. Granular materials exhibit very complicated behaviour which is discussedfurther in section 5.2.1. 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, 2001). However, MunchAnderson 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.
3. Discharge pressures are simplified by using an over pressure factor dependent flow in This is the the type of exhibited silo. a gross oversimplification of on the mechanisms that are occurring in a discharging silo; these have been be to very complex and produce wall normal pressures that are above shown the estimations made from overpressure factors, and in most cases are not depth in given a cylindrical silo (Nielsen, 1983). 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. The modelling is discharge outside the scope of this thesis. of
3.5 Evaluation of the average pressure coefficient k As mentioned, the evaluation of k affects the predictions of the abovetheoriesfor the in wall pressures a silo. 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). It is usually assumed that the average local but k differ is throughout the the contents silo constant of of values can ratio
22
influence from the assumed due factors to the value of such as wall deformation and wall friction. Methods that allow for the variation of the average value of k have been developed(Reimbertand Reimbert, 1976)but the overall result is often one that does not differ too greatly from using a single value of k. Using the single value of k has been consideredsufficiently accuratefor most researchers(Jaky, 1948; Pieper and Wenzel, 1965; Walker, 1966) but there has beenmuch discussion of what value k should be. Rankine (1857) showsthat there are theoretical boundaries for the value of k known as the active and passive pressureratios. 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, and " The passivepressure ratio that results from the movement of the wall towards the granularmaterial.
The active pressure is the minimum value and occurs just before failure of the granular material as the wall moves away. The passive pressure is the maximum just before the granular material compressively fails. As calculated value and occurs by Rankine these two coefficients are given by equations 3.17 and 3.18.
Active:
(3.17)
Passive:
(3.18)
Where 4 is the internal angleof friction of the granularmaterial. The active pressureratio could be experiencedin a flexible walled silo as there is fail if deforms. has for This been by to the the wall material ratio used scope some designers. It is unlikely that the passive pressureratio would be reached in a silo problem.
23
Values of k for use in silo problems have been suggested including Jenike et al's (1973) suggestion of 0.4 (no matter what the material is) and Jaky's (1948) ratio for earth pressure at rest:
k=1sinn
(3.19)
This is used mainly for silos with rough walls and has been adopted (with slight 19914 (1995) k by ENV the the which gives value of as: modem modification)
k =1.1(1 sin )
(3.20)
Figure 3.7 shows the effect of using the different values of k on the normal wall formula. in deep Janssen distribution the silo when using cylindrical a pressure
Figure 3.7  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. tend to the which similar values of predictions of
24
3.6 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. Most current codes (ENV 19914,1995; DIN 1055,1987) 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. This method would appear
simplistic given the number of variables that have been identified that can affect the
Co=1.35for4<30
(3.22) (3.23)
In the case of the eccentric discharge the procedure is more complicated and first involves the calculation of the flow channel eccentricity and geometry. This implies that the method is for funnel flow silos and no mention is made of eccentricmass flow hoppers. Knowledge of the flow channel then allows calculation of the wall pressurein the flow zone and also in the static zone.
3.7 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. Loads are imposedon the silo structure from external factors that include wind loads, seismic loads, and thermal loads caused by expansion and contraction of either the structure or the stored material.
25
3.7.1 Wind loading Any immovable structureexperiences actions from the wind. Many statistical tools are available for the prediction of possible wind speedsin a given geographical area wind loads. The shapeof the silo and the material it and these can be usedto assess is constructed from affect this loading, a tall, rough square silo will experience a higher wind load than a squat, smooth cylindrical bin. Consideration must also be include location This to the to the can silo with respect other structures. of given installation is being design if The considered. of the roof other silos a multicellular 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. 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. 3.7.2 Seismic loading
This type of load is not really applicable to designs intended for use in the UK or is low. the seismic activity world where of other areas However, there are a large
is important factor seismic activity an where and some codes give number of regions for load designing (ENV 19984,1999). The response of the this type of guidance on structure will be a function of the material it is constructed from, the type of
foundation and the structure's natural periods of vibration. 3.7.3 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. will structure is large inside to the then the ensiled material enough material stored may compared However, large the on position. 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. discharge problems associated with this compaction. Some researchers have
26
investigated this effect (Zhang et al, 1986; 1989). This phenomenoncould have a significant effect in areaswhere extreme temperaturecycles are apparent. 3.8 Application of theories to rectangular planform silos
All of the previously described theories are most applicable to circular planform silos. Some codes recommend ways in which the theory can be adjusted to take
account of the different shape (ENV 19914,1995; DIN 1055) and some have been adapted to make them more applicable (Reimbert and Reimbert, 1976). Janssen's (1895) postulated that the pressure at the midside of a rectangular silo paper original higher be than that at the comer. would shown experimentally to be incorrect For a flexible walled silo this has been
considerably lower than the pressure at the comer (Jarrett et al, 1995). 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. 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. 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
3.9 Silo response 3.9.1 Load supporting actions in silo structures This section of the thesis discusseshow the alternative forms of silo carry their loads have design. Cylindrical how this an effect on silo can silos support most of their and loads using inplane (membrane) forces although some bending may occur in orderto boundary (Rotter, in 1985a). Therefore, the of compatibility most cases maintain for is design Rotter (1985b) theory the used of cylindrical shells. membrane discussesseveral caseswhere the effects of bending stress may be of importance, loadings, cyclic where large bending stressescould causea such as under repeated fatigue failure.
27
Rectangular structures however are usually designed so that the primary load supporting action is that of bending stresses (Brown, 1998). 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. This tends to lead to an inefficient structure being designed with an excess of strength. Figure 3.8 shows a typical rectangular silo with a large amount of external stiffening.
Figure
3.8
A
rectangular
silo with
externally
applied
stiffening
However, as will
induced large be deflections. the when plate undergoes can stress membrane Therefore, if a design could be formulated that permitted large deflections then some be by load this membrane stress, creating a more efficient the carried would of structure. structures. 3.10 Membrane actions in rectangular plates When considering plates of the sort that a rectangular planform silo may be is bending from, However, that the action of main supporting actions. constructed deflection is large the the thin when at midpoint plates, compared to the with thickness of the plate, the middle surface becomes strained, resulting in inplane This would have particular benefit for smaller, unstiffened rectangular
28
tensile stress levels that stiffen the plate by a considerableamount. This stress is called diaphragm, direct or membrane stress. 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. A plate undergoing large deflections has nonlinear elastic loaddeflection and loadstress relationships which are not accountedfor by smalldeflection bending theory (the usual approachto plate bendingproblems). Thereforea modified theory must be for large deflections. 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. As an example considerationis given to a circular plate that is fully fixed about its edge (Ugural, 1981). The bending (small deflection) solution of this problem is given by equation3.24.
r4 64D
x =D wm.
64
or
P1=
r4
Wmax
(3.24)
The bending and membrane(large deflection) solution is given by equation 3.25 (for derivation seeUgural (1981)). 64DCw pl r3 1+8 r3 J Et (1 v) rr)
(2Lmax
(3.25)
Figure 3.9 shows deflections in the range 0<(w,,, /t)<1.5 and the corresponding load. 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. At the point w in load is 65% deflection the to the there theory. predicted according error a small =t
29
43.53.5 2.52 5.
2 2w
Smalldeflection theory Small Large deflection theory 1 00OF '10 " '
1.5
Figure 3.9  Comparison of large and small deflection theory for a circular plate
plates
Von Karman (1910) introduced governing differential equations for large deflections form These the take thin of coupled, nonlinear partial differential plates. of
equations and where realistic problems are concerned obtaining a solution is a complex and timeconsuming task. Some approximate solutions of simple shapes
have been determined loading (Timoshenko and WoinowskyKrieger, under uniform 1959; Roark and Young, 1975) but it is only since the advent of numerical techniques that the general problem has been treated satisfactorily 1989). Solutions for rectangular plates are therefore normally obtained by experimental or However, techniques. some examples are available from literature (e.g. numerical (Zienkiewicz and Taylor,
Bares (1979) for small deflections and Levy (1942) for large deflections) and these have beencollated by Roark and Young (1975) for engineeringdesignpurposes. The effect of calculating the stresses in rectangular plates using the two different theories can be easily shown using an example. Consider a squareplate, fully fixed load kPa. is 2 It from loaded of with a uniform made steel with E=210 GPa and and dimensions has lm of squareand thickness 3mm. and v=0.3
30
3.10.1.1 Small deflection theory From Roark and Young (1975) the formulas for the bending stressand deflection at the midpoint of a fully fixed squareplate underuniform load are given as: 0.1386gb2
t2
(3.26)
(3.27)
b= load area, width of plate, t= thickness,a= bending stress,w= per unit where q= deflection and E= Young's modulus. 3.10.1.2 Large deflection theory In Roark and Young (1975) analytical results from various sources are tabulated. This table is given for v=0.316 so results would be slightly different from those deflection Large deflection by theory. the small solutions are expressedin given terms of the coefficients w/t, gb4/Et4and ab2/Et2. Once the value of gb4/Et4 is determined then the table can be used to obtain values for the other coefficients. Interpolation between the values in the table may be necessary to provide values of for deflection a particular problem. stressand
3.10.1.3 Comparison of large and small deflection theory Table 3.1 shows the maximum stress in the plate and the deflection at the middle
from the two theories. point as calculated Midpoint stress (MPa) Small deflection theory Large deflection theory 30.8 23.8 Midpoint deflection (mm) 4.87 3.12
Table 3.1  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, lower values for stress and displacementare obtained. If membrane
31
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
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
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 19914,1995; 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. MullerBreslau (1906) for squat silos) but generally most codes use one
34
The Eurocode (ENV 19915,1994) 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
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 timeconsuming 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
be ideally for to appear suited problems of the type studied here. There are however limitations to eachmethod,describedbelow. 4.2.1 Finite difference method This method is most commonly applied to problems that can be described as twodimensional, such as the temperaturedistribution across a thin plate or the velocity of a duct. The system is divided into a regularly profile of a fluid at a crosssection function describe to the required variable is derived at each of the a spacedgrid and knowledge function's boundaries, Assuming the the the of grid. 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. because design the equationsto be solved must be determined and structural analysis for each separateproblem which would be extremely timeconsuming for a large finite difference is The the most established numerical method method analysis. discussedhere but is consideredunsuitable for the complex problem that is posed by the three dimensionalsimulation of silo filling.
4.2.2 Finite element method This technique is currently one of the most commonly used numerical techniques for design. It be different to types of problem, can engineering applied many mechanical be in that to the one can package used solve problems result a wide range of with fields (structural, magnetic flux, fluids, electrical). As in the finite difference method the problem is divided into a series of smaller elements connected by nodes. These in do finite difference be but to the the they grid points compared method nodes can be have to regularly spaced and thus, much more geometrically not finite be the using modelled element technique. problems can complex
There are a large number of commercial finite element packages available; which include GUI (Graphical User for Interface). 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. In the past,
37
implementation has involved based of numerical methods generally computer coding as required, making programs application specific and more timeconsumingto use. Modem software packages almost entirely eliminate the need for knowledge of programming languages etc., as they are driven by sophisticatedgraphicalinterfaces. 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. 4.2.3 Boundary element method
As the name implies, the form of discretization used in this method involves meshing the boundaries of a structure. This technique is relatively new but has already been least by to one research group (Wu and Schmidt, 1991). In at silo problems applied their published work a two dimensional silo was examined and the results obtained Janssen (1895). 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 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). However, there are comparatively few commercial boundary
in is due to the established nature of the available which, part, element packages finite element method which has been used successfully for a number of years.
4.2.4 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. 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). The material is representedby a number of particles and the interaction betweentheseparticles is This should appearto give the most accuraterepresentation of numerically. modelled to using the behaviour of bulk solids. However there are a number of disadvantages bulk interaction between Because the of each particle granular solid and this method. is is modelled, an enormous computing resource required to particles adjacent
38
dimensional Rotter (1998) two analysis. a simple et specified 10,000 perform even al particles for a small two dimensional problem. 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, 1999). number of particles could be in the region of 1013 4.3 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. engineers, these commercial packageshave been shown to be suitable for modelling silo Ooi She, is 2000; 1997). Therefore (Guines this and et al, method adopted problems for the remainder of the work presentedhere. Although there are several specialist for prediction of silo wall pressure(Ragneauet al, 1998), these are codes available is therefore a commercial and available package utilised. The package generally not ABAQUS is chosen for its superior handling of the material and model nonlinearities which are important featuresof a thinwalled rectangularsilo. 4.4 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. There are two distinct phasesthat have been explored, filling (and discharge. Theseare often studied separatelyas and pressures upon pressures, static) the numerical techniquesfor the two casescan differ significantly. 4.4.1 Filling pressures
Many researchers have used the finite element method to predict the wall pressures upon filling a silo. They include Jofriet et al (1977), Mahmoud and AbdelSayed
(1981), Ooi and Rotter (1990), Ragneau and Aribert (1993), Ooi et al (1996), Ooi Chen (2000). is, in This (1997), She the main, aimed towards and et al work and axisymmetric modelling of cylindrical silos as it allows easy comparison with the Janssen method.
39
For an axisymmetric silo, Jofriet et al (1977) showed that a finite element model between Janssen the the good agreement predictions and model. could produce Mahmoud and AbdelSayed (1981) further showed that the finite element method could produce results that agreed reasonably well with experimental measurements. Both of these pieces of work used custom written finite element code which is outside of the scopeof this thesis. 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. highly deformations The large the that of 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. This is becausecircular silos have a high radial stiffness which means that strain developed in the storedmaterial is quite small. 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. 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). Further discussion of this relationship is 6.4.1. in given section Analysis in threedimensions is less common as the twodimensional 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 threedimensional and analysis performed silo. planform circular been applied to rectangular planform silos. Results have been presentedby Ragneau (2000). Guines Both have (1994) these the al et and of works characterised et al Ragneau (1994) as an elastic/plastic material. used the nonet al material ensiled linear elastic model of Boyce (1980) coupled with both the DruckerPrager(1952) (1979) Guines (2000) Wilde the criteria. plasticity also used a nonlinear et al and it (Roscoe 1965) 1979) CamClay (Hujeux, and coupled with et al, a model elastic
40
has demonstrated This the complex patternsof wall pressure work plasticity model. that occur in this type of silo but hasnot extendedthe work to give guidelines for the design of thesetypes of structure. It is known that the interaction betweenthe stored solid and the structurecan have an effect on the wall pressures. Axisymmetric analysis of this interaction has been carried out by both Mahmoud and AbdelSayed (1981) and Emanuel et al (1983). 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 nonuniform. 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. Chen et al (2000) explored the effect of ring stiffeners in an axisymmetric silo. A previously (Rotter 1995) finite the silo et al, was modelled with element experimental studied in in the vicinity of the wall similar peaks pressure were observed method and stiffening rings.
Rotter et al (1998) conducted a large international study into the use of the finite discrete for filling defined A element methods pressures. and well problem element by a number of research groups and the results obtained vary analysed was significantly. The conclusions of this study were that the finite element method can The filling
but has the main differences arise from the researcher's an effect method modelled choice of material properties. 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.
4.4.2 Discharge pressures Although the current study is concernedwith prediction of the filling pressuresonly it is important to consider the modelling of discharge pressures. There is often a large pressurepeak at the onsetof dischargewhich is referred to as a switch pressure. Several researchers(Jenike and Johanson,1968; Walters, 1973a)explain this switch
41
in pressureas a change the stressfield in the solid. However, it is often the casethat only part of the material is moving (funnel flow) and therefore there is no overall but change rather, localised changes resulting in asymmetry of the discharge pressures. As well as this switch pressure,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 19914,1995; DIN 1055,1987). 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, resulting in silos with a high factor of safety). This appears to be the accepted trend since research groups (Runesson and Nilsson, 1986) who have specifically modelled the discharge stage have done so in order to study other discharge the such as patterns. phenomena
Modelling of discharge is often carried out separately to the modelling of the filling. This is because different techniques must be employed for this type of problem. Some groups (Feise and Dai, 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, 1986). Those groups (e. g. Link and Elwi, 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). theories and of and
4.5 Summary
The finite element method has been chosen because of it proven ability to model large A been have problems. number structural of silo problems modelled complex in but have, been the technique this main, restricted to axisymmetric analysis of using has been Little directed towards threedimensional modelling work silos. cylindrical and of the work available only preliminary silos have been carried out. investigations of rectangular planform in determining a
42
suitable method for characterisingthe behaviour of the granular bulk solid. This is investigated in Chapter 5.
43
5.1Analysistype
There are two basic types of analysis that the finite element method uses for linear in and nonlinear. mechanics; 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. material simple elastic system. Figure 5.1 shows the loaddeflection of a
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 loads applied and the boundary conditions. The resulting set of equations can be solved directly.
44
Nonlinear analysis, as the name implies, dealswith systems that exhibit a nonlinear responseto the applied load. Figure 5.2 showsthe nonlinearresponseof a system.
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. Solutions to nonlinear problems the which applies procedure may also not be unique making their solution more difficult. This situation is shown in figure 5.3.
45
The figure shows that there are two values of displacement for the given 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 this type of behaviour is expectedthen engineeringjudgement and other calculations may also be required to determine which is the correct (required) solution. 5.1.1 Sourcesof nonlinearity There may be several featuresof a problem that can give rise to nonlinearity. Nonlinearities can arise from geometric nonlinearity (large strains and deflections), material nonlinearity (creep, plasticity etc) and contact interface conditions between areasof the model. A large number of problems contain nonlinearity and separate different solution techniques must be adopted for nonlinear and linear (small displacement) analyses.
5.1.2 Obtaining a solution in nonlinear finite element analysis
Most commercialfinite elementpackagesuse a NewtonRaphson method in order to is This problems. an iterative process that divides the problem into a solve nonlinear number of incrementsoften called time steps. This does not imply that the problem is mechanically dynamic; the time step is not measured in real units and it may be easierto consider the increments as a percentage of load (i. e. it ranges from 0 (no load) to 1 (full load)). This technique involves taking the tangential stiffness matrix at the starting incrementing (for load. 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. If this value were zero then the and can external the structurewould be in equilibrium but that is rarely the case. This correction value is comparedto a set criterion and if this is satisfied the increment is said to have converged. If not, the tangential stiffness matrix is reformulated using the new configuration and the process repeated until convergence is obtained. Using this iterations it for each time increment to obtain the solution. take several method may
46
Since the software reforms the model stiffness matrix and solves the system of equations for each iteration the computational time required for nonlinear analysisis for linear than that analysis. greater required much 5.1.3 Nonlinearity in silo problems A threedimensional finite element model of a silo will contain all the sourcesof nonlinearity mentioned above. As the current work dealswith silo walls that may exhibit large deflections there is a geometric nonlinearity implicit in the problem. There finally between the the the and and silo walls contents of silo, contact must also exist the stored material will exhibit nonlinear properties(mostly plastic deformations). 5.1.3.1 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. of explicit set a single of loading. 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 3.10 in showed that a plate could support more load if large section was given deformations were accounted for and membrane action was enabled. In the finite is dealt by type this situation of a geometrically nonlinear with method element displacements by function The to the strains are now related a nonlinear analysis. in described techniques section 5.1.2 must be adopted. and solution
5.1.3.2 Contact analysis In order to model the interaction between the stored material and the silo structure, by force be to transfer the there should a mechanism exerted the weight of the stored is This by These the to the silo. elements. 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. interface. In loads the the transfer the of model and allow across a of portions
47
form loads take the these of pressure across or relative sliding problem structural betweenthe contact surfaces. The interaction can be modelled as frictional, smooth large displacements These to tied. and nonlinear solution can give rise elements or techniquesmust be employed. This work uses a Coulomb model for friction which by (figure to the the at slip normal stress a simple coefficient, shear stress relates 5.4). 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. also a small amount material move away implies between This "elastic" that the the contact surfaces. 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. in ABAQUS the that the standard value package gave and concluded model a silo satisfactoryresults.
19
(constantfriction coefficient)
i
Normal stress
Figure 5.4  Coulomb model for friction
5.2 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. model relationship model must is in in This by finite the the a material. method strain required element order and that the displacements of the model may be calculatedfrom the forces applied.
48
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. In the current work a constitutive law is required for steel (for the structure)and the granular solid (for the ensiled material). 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 postelastic behaviour. However, 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. do In to this the main propertiesthat affect order granular solid must the granular materials behaviour must be identified and quantified. 5.2.1 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, and solids. puts classedas granular hencereferenceswill be made to soil mechanicsas this field has much relevanceto the work presentedhere. The complex behaviour of granular bulk solids has alreadybeenmentioned. The fact that they exhibit highly nonlinear behaviour makes the determination of their for than, complicated more properties example, thoseof a steelsample. material Material properties are required for a number of reasonswhich might include, design, in this case, numerical modelling. Considering steel as an example, or, calculation this material's elastic behaviour can be simply describedby two variables;the elastic Poisson's This indication the ratio. and would give no of the yield stressor modulus behaviour (although this could be incorporated) but is sufficient postyield information for a simple, smallstrain problem. Values for thesevariableswould be determinedfrom tensile tests, which are relatively easyto perform.
49
The aforementionedvariables alone are not enough to adequately describe the full range of behaviour of a granular bulk solid. 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. Kolymbas (1988) has identified many characteristicsfor defining the behaviour of bulk solids and of thesethe most important are: " " Plasticity: Dilatancy: Irreversibledeformations. When bulk solids shearthe material changesdensity even if the hydrostaticstressremainsthe same. " " Barotropy: The material behaviour dependsin the stresslevel.
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.
In order to assess these characteristics geotechnical engineers have developed determine tests to the properties of granular bulk solids. alternative These tests
include, the shear box, biaxial tester and the triaxial tester. A list of some of the parameters that are used to describe bulk solids properties is shown in table 5.1.
50
The angle between a tangent to the yield locus of the material and the normal stressaxis. Determinedfrom shearbox tests. The mass of a quantity of bulk solid divided by its total volume. The shear stress at yield under zero normal stress. Gives an indication of whether the material can
load. supportany
Dilation, y Voids ratio, e The increasein volume due to shear. The ratio of volume of voids betweenthe particles to volume of solid particles.
Table 5.1  Some properties of granular bulk solids
5.2.2 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 5.1. 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. 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, the shear strength and
the density. Some of the more commonly performed tests are the shear cell test, an oedometer (onedimensional consolidation) test and the triaxial test and the methodology and below. example results are presented The shearcell test enables the engineer to determine the internal angle of friction. A in figure is 5.5 is Jenike to test shearcell shown and often as a cell referred shear (1964).
51
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 5.6. A Mohr circle tangent to this line is S. value then drawn through the origin which determinesthe unconfinedyield strength (Q. A first locus (W, S) is drawn Mohr tangent to the the which point on yield circle second determinesthe consolidatingpressures of the material, pl and p2. The effective angle in is S figure between is friction the xaxis 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. the experiments. For a cohesionless
Figure 5.6  Yield loci of granular material determined from the Jenike shear cell
This diagram can also determine the cohesion of the material. A large number of but (have bulk some can support a are no shear strength) cohesionless solids granular
52
locus S load. In the the the yield would cross case of a cohesional material axis small on the abovefigure at a nonzero value. 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. The oedometercan be used to give simple information about a granular solid's onedimensional compression response. This may be comparable to a tensile or is loaded A test sample of granular material on a material such as steel. 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 5.7 height the the or volumetric of sample some parameter. against from the typical an oedometertest. of results plot showsa
These results give simple ideas about the stressstrainrelationship in a soil. 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 stressstrain curve of the response. is is in figure 5.8 The triaxial test then regularly a used. apparatus shown material is fully by Bishop (1957). Henkel! the outlined and procedure and
53
The sample is prepared and sealedin a rubber membrane. It is then placed in the into bottom The brought the top contact with and radial stress platens. apparatusand (') 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. 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. radial stress.
q=aaar
(5.1)
(a, ) in order This test is repeateda number of times with different confining pressures to produce different stressstraincurves and a typical example can be seen in figure 5.9 (taken from Ooi (1990))
54
rlguroa
IIaa,
lal
tvJI
UII3
Jul
nucal
WdIC[IAIVUI
177VJ
Thesecurves illustrate one of the characteristics of granular bulk solids mentioned abovewhich is barotropy (the material behaviour dependson the stresslevel). 5.3 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, to the constitutive a numerical can appropriate behaviour of the solid in the finite element software. This law is a set of relationships that defines the elastic or the plastic behaviour of a material (or both). Nielsen and Weidner (1998) state that the constitutive law must be chosen with respect to the
There are a large number of these laws, proposed mainly by civil engineers in the field of soil mechanics. Not all of them are applicable to the field of silo research becauseof the differences in loading, water flow etc. Hence only those that are
55
These can describe irreversible deformations and include metal plasticity and creep laws. A study of creep is beyond the scope of this project and so model laws
incorporating creep specifically will not be reported here. Laws for use with soils are from laws Von derived Mises. 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. A yield surface is a surface set in stress
space which divides the elastic and plastic regions of the model. Anything inside the is irreversible. considered reversible and outside, yield surface
5.3.3 ElasticPlastic laws An elasticplastic law can be used to more accuratelydescribethe behaviour of bulk solids. This type of model also makes use of a yield surface and one of the more is MohrCoulomb law. implemented law has been This the used commonly field in It the of soils research with useful results. 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. this and 56
This sustainableshear stress dependson the angle of internal friction (4) and the further law is (c) A type this the DruckerPrager law which the solid. of cohesion of has been used by some research groups for silo problems (Aribert and Ragneau, 1990). The DruckerPrager failure criterion has the advantage over the MohrCoulomb in that it is describedby simple formulae, and is thus numerically easier to handle. Both of these laws are capable of describing a number of the properties dilatancy, barotropy but (plasticity, they are still rateetc) above mentioned independent and isotropic (Feiseand Schwedes,1998). Again these constitutive laws be laws. be to of metal plasticity extensions may considered As well as the yield surface, the elastic behaviour and the flow rule (which determinesthe direction and rate of plastic flow) must also be defined. The elastic behaviour can be modelled by any one of the linear or nonlinear elastic laws description detailed in 5.3.1. A MohrCoulomb the more of section and mentioned be found in DruckerPrager criteria can sections 5.4.3 and 5.4.4. 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. Other models include ratetype, polar, creep and microscopic and discussionof thesecan be found in Feiseand Schwedes(1998). 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. tested theory may against and experimental constitutive Experimentaldata is available from severalsources (Lahlouh et al, 1995; Rotter 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. suitable laws Several these as accurately as possible. constitutive of the types materials of implemented in described this study. These are: abovewere
"
" "
Linear elastic with MohrCoulomb plasticity (LEMC). Linear elastic with DruckerPragerplasticity (LEDP).
DruckerPrager (PEDP). Porous plasticity with elastic is These laws have been chosenbecausethe ABAQUS finite elementsoftware (as well as other commercially available packages)provides support for them. 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. 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. It is laws these that may not provide results that cover all aspectsof granular accepted in behaviour laws (e. to when compared silos silo specific g. material material Kolymbas, 1988) but their availability in other finite elementpackageswould make the design problem more tractable for practising designers. 5.4.1 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. The (Young's modulus and linear elastic law is described completely by two parameters Poisson's ratio). 5.4.2 Porous elastic law This constitutive law is provided specifically for the modelling of granular materials is It law voids. a nonlinear 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). Critical state soil mechanics (CSM) aims to mathematicallydescribethe responseof by from is Consideration the triaxial tests. using results obtained materials granular history behaviour the the this to the of stress material, as affect will of the given loading. Of in this method are the upon subsequent principal concern material
58
bulk These between the the the volume stress and of solid. effective relationships from in determined described 5.2.2. 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, may regimes utilised by other researchers(Chen et al, 2000). model has beensuccessfully A typical volumetric responseof a granular solid as it is compressedis shown in figure 5.10(a) and for the purposes of critical state soil mechanics this data is rein figure 5.10(b). This shown produces a series scale plotted on a semilogarithmic lines which represents a simplified characterisation of the materials of straight behaviourbut is howeverreadily describedmathematically.
VV
D
K
p (a)
Figure 5.10  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, C D X. The and representsubsequentunloading and reloading of gradient the specimenand these have the same gradient x which is generally assumedto be the samefor eachline. It is the initial compressionthat this project is concernedwith
59
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. 5.4.3 MohrCoulomb law The MohrCoulomb criterion is one of the simplest models for granularmaterialsand (1864). Tresca for be the criterion plasticity of metal considered an extension may Figure 5.11 shows the distortion of a block of granular material, supportedon a rigid base,due to the application of a force.
\ Force
(a)
(b)
(c)
If this experiment were conducted it can be shown that for small valuesof force there by figure 5.11(b). is a small elastic deformation of the granular material represented When the force reachessome critical value, the material divides itself into two blocks in figure is The 5.11(c). 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 rigidplastic mode. 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. failure The to the criteria with occur respect normal stress. will stressat which slip can be written as:
60
Z=Qtan9S+c
(5.2)
Where c is the cohesionof the material. It may be noted that many coarsematerials have a very low or zero value of c. It is also noted that for the special caseof 4= 01 then this reducesto the Trescacriterion. There are three states to considerin an ideal Coulomb material, 1. t< atan4+c,this implies that no slip can occur. 2. ti = atan4+c, this implies a slip plane will form but the extent of this slip is by boundary the conditions of the material. and governed unknown 3. r> atan$+c, these values cannot occur becauseif values of rc greater than those given by equation5.2 imply that the material is not in static equilibrium away from the other. and one of the "blocks" would accelerate Figure 5.12 showsthe completeMohrCoulomb failure criteria.
rfigure a.iz 
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. If the Mohr's circle touches the line then condition 2 above is said to exist. From condition 3 it can be deducedthat the line may not intersectthe circle.
61
The yield function, Y, is the formalised way of expressing the failure criteria. By definition the yield function must satisfy the function: Y=0 (5.3)
And thus if the Coulomb function is rewritten in terms of coordinatesn ands which are normal to and along the slip plane respectively, the yield function can be written
as:
Y
Zn c tan  Q...
(5.4)
5.43.1 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. In order to determinetheseunknowns the concept of a plastic potential function (G) is introduced which is analogousto ideal fluid flow conditions. Once the plastic potential surface is defined, the strain derivatives in direction to the are related of the plastic potential with respect any rates to the correspondingstress.
G =&7y
(5.5)
Where i andi are any combination of the coordinate variables (polar, Cartesian)and
4 is a scalar constant.
The relationship between the yield function and the plastic potential is known as the flow rule. One special case is the associated flow rule. 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). material
Imno ev_IY.
(5.6)
62
Experimental observation of consolidated materials show that the actual level of dilation is less than that predicted by equation 5.6 (Nedderman, 1992) and it is therefore usual to define an angleof dilation (w) such that: y , = It Itan y, (5.7)
W=4
flow rule where: Most real materials howevermust use a nonassociated W<
(5.8)
(5.9)
Figure 5.13 shows idealisedresults from a shearbox test adaptedfrom Atkinson and Bransby (1978).
Figure 5.13  Variation of a) shear force and b) volumetric strain with shear strain in a granular material (Atkinson and Bransby, 1978)
The figure shows the volumetric strain rate with respectto the shearstrain. It may be C. This the that volumetric strain at reaches a maximum about point observed is dilation It 2% to of occurs. after which no more corresponds a shearstrain about
63
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. 5.4.3.2MohrCoulomb criterion in threedimensional stress space When the MohrCoulomb criterion is projected into threedimensional stressspaceit forms a yield surface. This is simply an extension of the above figure 5.12 where line the were treated as elastic and stress above the line resulted in stressesunder Figure 5.14 deformation. shows the threedimensional representationof the plastic MohrCoulomb criterion which appearsas an irregular hexagon. It follows from the inside the surface are treated as elastic and those outside(or more that stresses above inelastic. the treated are as surface) specifically on
5.4.4 DruckerPrager
law
If the MohrCoulomb criterion is consideredto be an extension of the Tresca(1864) based DruckerPrager is then the shear stress maximum on criterion an criterion (1913) for Mises breakdown. This is based the criterion von elastic of on extension shearstrain energy.
64
In principal stress space the DruckerPrager yield surface appears as a cone (figure 5.15) which has numerical advantages over the MohrCoulomb criteria shown in figure 5.14. Numerical problems with the MohrCoulomb 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
DruckerPrager The criterion eliminates this problem as the normal to the calculate. defined. be uniquely yield surfacewill always In terms of the stressinvariants the DruckerPragercriterion is expressed as: (II, J2) I, + NfJY2  (5.10)
a and are material constants. The DruckerPragercriterion can be calibratedin such a way that it approximates the MohrCoulomb criterion. This is achievedby adjusting the size of the cone so that
65
the outer apicesof the MohrCoulomb coincide with the DruckerPrager cone. This in figure 5.16. is situation shown
Figure 5.16  The coincidence of the DruckerPrager and MohrCoulomb criteria (Chen, 1994)
The two criteria will not give the exact same results as they do not coincide at all points. As in the MohrCoulomb 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 Nonlinear have solution techniques must be used to silo problems behaviour the nonlinear 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
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 threedimensionalmodel 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. 19914,1995). 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 ydirection (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 ydirection. restrained eachnodewould
E' Wall 0
Base Figure 6.1  Restraint at the base of the finite element model of the bin
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 selfweight 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.
y Lot (L X
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 "
"
69
"
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. for eachof theseconstitutive laws are determined by performing suitable Parameters tests upon the granular material and translating the results into the finite element model. Examples of the types of tests performed on geotechnical materials were given in section5.2.2. 6.4 Elastic material models
6.4.1 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. Values of v and k are interdependant for elastic solids. k is the ratio of horizontal to vertical stress in the solid in is this the report used as defined by ENV 19914 (1995), and is assumed value and to be constant:
k=1.1(1 sin q5) internal friction 4 is the of angle of the material. where
(6.1)
The angle of internal friction can be related to the Poisson's ratio of the material by 2001). 6.2 (Rotter, equation
v _k l+k
(6.2)
70
For the Leighton Buzzard Sand in question, 0= 35.4 (Lahlouh et al, 1995) and therefore k=0.463 (2000). The bulk density of the material must be determined. Severalvalues are given for the bulk density by Lahlouh et al (1995), relating to various stress states within the material. These are loose density, density after a 200mm fall and vibrated (compacted) bulk density. Table 6.1 shows thesevalues: Mean loose bulk density (kg/m) Mean bulk density from a 200mm fall (kg/m) Mean vibrated bulk density (kg/m) 1,576 1,610 1,672 and hence, v=0.3164. E is taken as 1OMPaafter Chen et al
Table 6.1  Values of bulk density for Leighton Buzzard sand from Lablouh et al (1995)
Initially the bulk density is taken as the mean of thesethreevalues(1,619kg/m3)in an density be that the to observedat the relatively low pressure would attempt estimate levels experienced in silos. This value must also be used in the Janssen calculations for comparison purposes. Figure 6.3 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. To determine the Janssen
in be The figures this shown and all subsequent used. pressures must are parameters taken from the individual nodes in the model as opposed to being an average across the face of each element.
71
0
Janssen E 2 Linear elastic
E
08
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
Unit weight, ,y
Effective friction, 4)
angle
of
internal
Lower degrees
bound,
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
45 50 26.5 35 35.5 23
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 M706T1 2 3Coal 4 m 0 a E 0 J:
7
II
tBarley + Barley (Janssen) (FE) fBarley At Cement (Janssen) Cement (FE) Coal (Janssen) *Coal (FE) (Janssen) tWheat Wheat (FE)
10 02468
U 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
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 siJanssen distribution E=SMPa E=1OMPa E=15MPa E=50MPa 5 6 7
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
76
0
Janssen distribution 2Porous elastic model
10
05 Depth from 10 surface (m) 15 20
Figure 6.6  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. elastic previous Both of these
constitutive laws should produce results that agree with the Janssen distribution in this silo. 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. Therefore it is assumed that one or more of the values in the porous elastic model has been incorrectly adopted. 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. ratio and on previous study Therefore investigation was carried out to determine whether one or more of the for X, Po eo or was poorly chosen. Figure 6.7 shows the effect of values adopted Po. the of values changing
77
0 1 2 u 3
4
6 7+ 08 9
Janssen Initial pressure=0.01 kPa  aIndial pressure=0.1 kPa Initial pressure 1kPa
10
02466 Wall normal 10 pressure 12 (kPa) 14 16 18
Figure 6.7  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. 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. 1kPa is also not an insignificant stress with respect to the maximum normal stress that is in bin in future (13.3kPa) it this to and models occur may be difficult expected large initial this relatively predict what effect stress may have. to
It is therefore
5.11 it can be seen that these two parameters, as well as the bulk density, are intrinsically linked. If the value of one of these parameters is changed then the others Figure 6.8 be that to reflect change. shows a simplified version of recalculated must figure 5.11 that represents the volumetric behaviour of the solid in the silo as described by the porous elastic law.
78
Point A represents the volume of the material when no load is applied and can be from initial bulk density, the voids ratio and particle values of pressure, calculated density. 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). distribution It is known that for any given silo and material there is a Janssen
Pmax
(6.3)
=Yk
Given this value, the final bulk density and the value of the density of the solid
it is final in to the the material, possible calculate granular voids ratio that particles corresponds to the Janssenasymptotic condition. Point B can then be plotted since:
v=1+e
(6.4)
By following a similar calculation and taking an initial (unstressed) bulk density and Referring back be 6.1 A Lahlouh to table calculated. can point et al (1995) pressure, be densities bulk that can used to perform these calculations. give The initial bulk
density is taken as the loosest form (i. e. it is unstressed) and the final bulk density is taken as the value measured after a 200mm fall. vibrated This value is chosen over the
79
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. The voids be from fraction in both (s) given by the these calculated of states can now void ratio equation 6.5.
1Y=s PS
(6.5)
Where ps is the density of the solid particles. For silica this is taken as 2,650kg/m3 (Nedderman,1992). The voids ratio is related to the voids fraction by:
E
(6.6)
e=
1+E
These two states of the material are assumed to exist at some pressure. The initial is initial the taken to the of y as same as that eo and value corresponding pressure OlkPa). (O. in the elastic model porous used The final pressure is taken as the
for from 6.3 is 27.8kPa. this material which equation calculated asymptotic value Given this information and the assumption that in the semilogarithmic diagram the drawn. diagram be The line, by joined the can a straight gradient of the are points line between the two points gives the value of logarithmic bulk modulus. Table 6.5 figure X. in the information the calculated and value of the above used shows Bulk density (kg/m3) Initial state 1,576 Voids ratio (e) 0.681 Pressure (kPa) 0.01
1,610
0.646
0.0044 27.8
80
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 6.1. Figure 6.9 shows the finite element results using the newly determined properties, as well as the appropriate Janssen calculation.
0 1 2a3
u
5 0 A6
t 08 9 10 05 10 WWNnormal pressure 15 (kPa) 20 25
This model now shows agreement between the results and the Janssen model between linear Janssen. 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 effect is due to compression of the stored material as the gravity load is applied. 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). This fill in be model. a progressive possible would This phenomenon would only be a
if the granular material modelled was very compressible, 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.
81
conditions imposed by
calibration against the Janssen equation. This is because the Janssen theory assumes a single value of bulk density and therefore for a given silo, equation 6.3 gives the value of the maximum vertical pressure. This pressure along with equations 6.5 and 6.6, which gives the voids ratio at that density, fixes point B on the graph by utilising equation 6.4. Point A however, can be moved on the graph by assuming different initial for the parameters. 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, condition calculated by the finite element
if initial Janssen. For that match of example, a greater voids ratio should analysis (say 0.75) is assumed then the value of y and A. can be recalculated as above. This particular voids ratio gives y=1,514kg/m3 and A.= 0.013. Altering the parameters of
the porous elastic model accordingly gives the results shown in figure 6.10.
Again the agreement between the results is good but the overall compressibility, has been These have by been change, altered. results volume calculated exhibited different It be therefore of set material parameters. may entirely arguedthat an using
initially be incorrect. 2, 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
how the values where calculated or these ascertaining or results of confirming way However, those values give results that compare very well with the theoretical Janssendistribution and are acceptedas a representationof the material for future constitutive modelsof sand. 6.5 Elasticplastic models In examining constitutive laws suitable for use in a threedimensionalmodel where large strains may occur, the ensiled material is very likely to undergo inelastic deformations. Therefore a failure criterion is required. A failure criterion defines the level of stress at which the material's behaviour changesfrom elastic to inelastic. The MohrCoulomb and the DruckerPrager(1952) criteria are two commonly used full laws be These to a elastomay combinedwith elastic provide plasticity criteria. behaviour in be the that material's capable granular will of modelling plastic model large strain situations (as well as still incorporating small strains). Both of these infinite deformations because described they allow of as perfectly plastic criteria are the material without any increasein the stresslevel. The principles of these criteria 5.4.3 5.4.4. in sections outlined were 6.5.1 Application of the plasticity criteria to the axisymmetric model
derived.
It was proposed by Ooi and Rotter (1990) that in the axisymmetric situation, a solely for be law this and examples result was most might sufficient constitutive elastic is figure 6.3. However, in the tested using the axisymmetric model again shown has laws the to of whether addition plasticity a significant effect assess elastoplastic is it be Both that there predicted although expected will none. 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. be to to angle assumed as set out section material 5.4.3.1'and the angle of friction is taken to be 35.4. However this value only relates it by determined MohrCoulomb from a friction the model as was used to the angle of DruckerPrager MohrCoulomb In data the to the box test. use model order shear both is There the be that of response models so matched. are two reinterpreted must is One failure for definition this in to the conversion. match performing options
83
triaxial compression and tension. However the ABAQUS manual (2001) only for low internal friction. this materials with approach values of recommends The secondapproachis to match the plane strain responseof the two models. It may be argued that for any subsequent threedimensional analysis this plane strain invalid but be has been before for this matching procedure used could assumption similar problems (Holst et al, 1996) and produced results comparable to theoretical flow (M'=O) DruckerPrager In the the angle of case of nondilatant methods. internal friction is given by: tan fl = jsinO (6.7)
Where is the DruckerPrager angle of internal friction. The initial yield stressof the material is given by: (6.8) ao1d
1_3
For the sand this gives values of 46.1 for the internal angle and 0 for the initial yield is is it the (because that c=0, material cohesionless). In practice a assumed stress for is in (0.25kPa) the assumed value of a, order to maintain numerical value small in is due This the to the very small critical axisymmetric analysis not value stability. in Later in testing these threedimensionalmodels models. amount of plastic strain further showsthat for small values of a., the effect on wall pressuresis negligible. Figure 6.11 shows the results in the axisymmetric bin of the three elastoplastic LEDP for PEDP) (LEMC, laws and sand. constitutive
84
o
Janssen 2 n v
V
t4 
06 WX c8
Figure 6.11  The effect on wall normal pressures of using elastoplastic 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, failure however does This be that a not mean model will not required models. elastic for other types of simulation (notably threedimensional simulation). 6.6 Three Dimensional models In order to predict the wall pressures in rectangular or square silos a threedimensional model is required. A twodimensional model could be used to make
down the the wall, as with the axisymmetric cases pressures about simple predictions described above, but it is known that in rectangular silos there is a nonuniform depth (Jarrett distribution the 1995). is It across wall at any constant et al, pressure important to be able to predict this phenomenon for design use and consequently only a threedimensional model will suffice. Threedimensional 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 planform is valid. Methods used by codes in the treatment of threedimensional problems were 3.3.2. in section given
85
6.6.1 Further validation It has been suggestedthat the averagepressures acrossthe wall at a given depth in a equation (Jarrett, 1991; Jarrett rectangular silo are well approximatedby the Janssen et al, 1995). The constitutive models can therefore be validated againstthis as well data is from that available previous studies (Lahlouh et al, 1995; as experimental Jarrett et al, 1995). In these works, extensivetesting of a squareplanform silo was for distributions data is the available pressure acrossthe wall carried out and much in the ensiled material. Comparisonwill be made in the current work and the stresses to that of Lahlouh et al (1995). This work and subsequent analysis is well reported (Rotter et al, 2002). The silo used in this work had a 2.5m deep bin section with a shallow, funnel flow hopper. It was 1.5m squarein planform and is constructed of 6mm thick steel plate. At this size the silo could almost be classified as squat (h/d = 1.667). Figure 6.12 shows the layout of this rig.
86
Approxima te fill
acewhen
ven
ado
6mmsmooth wall
350 350
Vertical
e4
o
walled section
C) N
Pressurecell
100
8O
10
Ring Colurrin #3 Column
Transition
6mm Hopper Il
12 13
43.8
outlet 80x80
'"
CD f
o
13
wk oo0o0
Cohmm #2
Column #1 1500
Column
(all dimensionsin mm) (a) View of the model silo Figure 6.12  Schematic showing the layout of the experimental rig used by Lablouh et al (1995)
The finite element model of the experimental rig uses 4noded quadrilateral shell brick 8noded bin, the solid elements to model the ensiled and elementsto model have been but it Higher could selected elements order was anticipated that material. large become hence final very and computational resources may the model could have becomestrained. Advantage is taken of the symmetry of the bin and henceonly
87
The but they themselves modelled. 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. The experimental rig featured a ring beam that, for
in here. As is the axisymmetric case the walls are modelled not modelled simplicity, friction Figure Coulomb 6.13 finite frictional the the model. shows element with as determine B Appendix to the number of elements used the used method shows mesh. in this mesh.
been have in fill the that the experiment. 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. output
88
6.6.2 Comparison with Janssen pressure distribution Figure 6.14 shows the average (integrated) wall normal pressure as determined from The five Janssen is the appropriate constitutive models. of curve also shown. 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.
0 0.25 0.5
0.75 Janssen fLE
', ;
SPE
LEMC PEDP LEDP
8S 1.25
3 0
1
1.5 1.75 2 2.25 0369 WaH normal pressure 4
`,
12 (kPa)
constitutive
laws
The graph clearly shows the deficiencies in the purely elastic models.
When
laws these values, constitutive underpredict the wall pressures considering average in the threedimensional model when compared to the Janssen distribution. This inaccuracy is caused by the large deformations that occur in the modelled granular bulk solid. These give rise to large strains in the ensiled material which simple
Inspection laws of modelling correctly. 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. 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. The final situation is that the stored material loses
89
hence large the the and pressures at centre are silo wall zero across a contact with percentage of the wall. This is obviously a poor representation of the actions
6.15 Figure in shows the pressure across the wall at midheight silo. a real occurring is law. load linear It is by that the the clear elastic entirely supported as calculated near the corner of the silo walls.
16 14 12 10 8 6 0
4 2 0 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75
 
of wall (m)
Figure 6.15  Pressures across the wall as predicted by linear elastic law
The MohrCoulomb model also underpredicts the pressures, but both models using the DruckerPrager distribution. criterion give an acceptable representation of the Janssen
The assumption may therefore be that the DruckerPrager criterion is a This may be because
better model for use in silo problems than the MohrCoulomb. the MohrCoulomb
does. DruckerPrager Experiments have the model shown that the whereas stress intermediate principal stress does have an effect on the failure of a soil (Lee, 1970). For the remainder of the project the suitable choice of constitutive law would appear PEDP LEDP The the the to be model or either model. to porous elastic restricted based model was chosen because it uses input parameters that can be obtained from bulk If the LEDP law were chosen then granular solids. on tests routinely performed it would be necessary to determine a suitable value of Young's modulus. This value is difficult to determine directly from the material and would inevitably be an
90
data. Using PEDP law from the test allows the modelling of a other extrapolation wide range of materials, that if treated as linear elastic, 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. 6.63 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. a square planform available et al (1995) but Lahlouh's experiments were chosen due to the larger amount of data available. 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 10.2.3. These have been shown to give reliable results when installed correctly in the silo wall (Askegaard et larger A free 1971). field cells of the type also described by Askegaard number of al, (1978) were also used. Table 6.6 gives wall normal pressures for the silo wall obtained from the free field cells in sand. 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 0.3m below the top of the silo and therefore the actual depth below the surface of the sand is approximately 0.3m less than the values given.
91
Distance from corner of bin (m) 0.05 2.0 0.20 2.9 0.40 3.3 0.75 2.8
0.75
1.00 1.25
8.1
11.5 16.1
5.9
6.0 7.2
4.6
4.6 5.2
2.8
4.0 4.0
Table 6.6  Wall normal pressures (in kPa) in the experimental (Lahlouh el al, 1995)
Figure 6.16 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. is distribution Janssen also shown. appropriate The
0
0.5 Experimental (Lahlouh et al, 1995) Janssen distribution fFinite element results
E
0 CL E 1.5 CL
(Lahlouh et at, 1995) and finite element wall normal for sand
92
The experimental and finite element results closely follow the Janssen distribution, but this however gives no information about the distribution of the normal pressures across the wall. The measured wall normal pressures were of a nonuniform distribution. The
is data distribution from finite therefore the compared with obtained experimental element model. Figure 6.17 shows the pressure distribution across the wall in the
from finite levels the the two element and corresponding predictions experiment at law. PEDP constitutive model using a
20
15
10, s 5
0 0 0.15 0.3 Distance from corner 0.45 of bin (m) 0.6 0.75
Figure 6.17  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. pressures measured at centre of the similar is but closer agreement observed nearer the corners of the wall are underestimated bin. This underprediction at the centre of the bin might be of concern if the results bending for design, basis be the being the as moment a at as centre would used were designed insufficient be the with wall may strength. underestimated and
93
particle size of 0.53mm and the pea gravel has a mean particle size of 2.55mm. Other properties as measured by Lahlouh et al (1995) are shown in table 6.7.
Property
Mean particle diameter (mm) 2.55
1,644
1,731 1,681 36.8
21.4
therefore the axisymmetric model was only used to calibrate the PEDP constitutive law in a similar way to the sand as described in section 6.4.2. 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. Equations 6.3  6.6 are again used and logarithmic bulk 0.61 initial a of and modulus of 0.0098. This voids ratio give an
implies that the gravel is more compressible over the small pressure range that is here. Later testing showedthis to be correct (section 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 6.18.
94
0 1 2 3
u 8S 5 6 7 4
s
10
05 10 Wall normal 15 pressure 20 (kPa) 25 30
Figure 6.18  Comparison between Janssen and FEA results for pea gravel
Again, the results show the same high level of corroboration across the majority of the bin as the sand model. A higher level of compression is observed as a result of the higher value for X. 6.6.5 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. al's et As with the Leighton Buzzard sand experimental data is The results from the finite
data from free field taken to the experimental average compared analysis element in figure distribution 6.19. Janssen the are shown cells and
95
0
s r 0.5 Experimental (Lahlouh at al, 2002) Janssen distribution
o .5 'S 1 CL a
E 1.5
Finde elementresufls ,
2.5
02468 Integrated wall normal 10 pressure 12 (kPa) 14 16
experimental
Janssen distribution
Again, 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. 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. There is also the possibility that due to the larger grain size present in the pea gravel, the results obtained from the free field cells could be adversely affected. For the free field cells to operate correctly there must be good contact
between the cell and the medium. 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, < which should minimise any possible effects of the cell. on this type.
There is data available for the distribution of pressureacross the wall and this can
finite in figure 6.20. be the element analysis as shown with compared again
96
` 25
2 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.15 0.3 Distance from corner

FEA,2m depth
0.6
0.75
Figure 6.20  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, data the corroboration appear relatively poor. would experimental towards the centre of the bin. 6.6.6 Best fit of finite element results to experimental data In order to further investigate the effect of the value of ?, on the wall pressure fit best exercise was carried out. predictions a X was varied in the sand and the
finite fit between leastsquares the element results and the gravel models and a data be found This in Appendix E. It can values performed. obtained experimentally from A, 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. 6.7 Onedimensional 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. Initially, values literature did from derived these that gave predictions and not agree well with were from density Secondly, Janssen theory. values were calculated measurements and the
97
the results obtained showed a high level of corroboration with Janssen theory. However, these values, when used in the threedimensional model, provided a not ideal representation of the distribution observed experimentally. of the pressure across the wall that was
for ? is both bulk but the various that of required a smaller value solids showed failed be. 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 onedimensional consolidation tests were performed. 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. Ideally, a triaxial test would have been performed. 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). The onedimensional cylindrical tests are performed by placing the granular bulk solid in a
cell and then using a stiff platen to apply a pressure. By monitoring the
displacement of the platen the axial strain can be related to the pressure level in the solid. 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 6.21 the to this sample settle. shows the arrangement. The will cause as way be long to the enough to ensure that endeffects 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. diameter, 140mm. The overall height of the cell was 300mm and the internal
98
Platen
consolidation
test cell
The tests were performed in a Series 8500 Instron. The maximum force applied to the platen was 200N which equates to a pressure level of approximately 15kPa. This level that would be experienced in a the of pressure representative was chosen as small rectangular silo. Figure 6.22 shows the raw data for one of the tests with Leighton Buzzard sand. 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.
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 a 0.1 0.05 0 02468 Pressure 10 (kPa) 12 14 16 18 Sand
consolidation
of sand
99
The graph shows an interesting feature of the material. As the pressure approaches 8kPa there is a possible reordering of the grains in the material causing the pressure to reduce. This new arrangement of grains results in a stiffer material and as the load is reapplied the strain increases only a small amount. When 8kPa is again reached in Subsequent the the the continues along original material path. strain and exceeded tests revealed similar patterns at different levels of stress.
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 6.6. If 6.4 that the the to made change volume entirely assumption equations due to changein voids ratio then theseresults can be usedto determinethe value of ),
for 6.23 figure 6.24 Figure the the to plots sand while shows material. each relevant for the gravel. the plots shows
1.765 1.764 1.763 1.762 1.761 1.76 1.759 1.758 1.757 0 0.5 1 1.5 Ln P 2 2.5 3 3.5 Test S1 Test S2
s.  Test S3
consolidation
100
1.664 L 1.662 1.66 1.658 1.656 1.654 1.652 1.65 0 0.5 1 1.5 In P 2 2.5 3 Test G1 Test G2 Test 03
consolidation
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 6.8. Sand Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average value 0.0015 0.0015 0.0020 0.0017 Gravel 0.0026 0.0031 0.0032 0.0030
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. as calculated fit to the experimental data suggested they should be. As ? is not well reported in the literature for these materials there is no other data to compare these values with. This difficult it these to values provide a good representation of the assess whether makes Ooi (1990) However, performed a series of rigorous triaxial tests on wheat material. X for his data finite interpreted to this give values of own element models. 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. on
101
it hoped by but Ooi to that the onedimensionaltests 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 0.0 16 to obtained results.
0.021.
Figure 6.25 shows consolidation lines for the wheat. Again the best fit line has been
1.785
> 1.775
1.77
1.765
consolidation
tests on wheat
The average value of X obtained for the type of wheat tested is 0.015. 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, values of without suitable triaxial test. the rigorous more perform 6.8 Conclusions and choice of values for PEDP 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/DruckerPrager element constitutive axisymmetric determined in It for X in that this the the porous was value project. of use was chosen law to the the the critical overall was performance of of model and a portion elastic
102
determine for to tests the materials. 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. 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. 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. Choicesof valuesfor all the parametersdiscussedmust be made basedupon the tests be in The that the remainder of the used out above. values will calculations carried or has been based in 6.9. ?, table chosen upon the consolidation tests analysesare given performed in section6.7.
Property Leighton Buzzard Sand Pea Gravel Wheat
yo(kg/m3) eo
Table 6.9  Final properties used for the materials in the finite element model
103
In Chapter 6 it was noted that there were end effects presentin the results for the wall bin. in These take the form of a local pressure the axisymmetric normal pressures increasenear the base when compared to the Janssendistribution. 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. boundary differing the conditions at with 7.1 Flatbottomed 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. All of the with well have been flatbottomed far and the baseof the structurehas been analysed models so length in but in its the the xdirection (figure ydirection entire not restrained along 6.1). The interaction between the base and the stored solid has been idealised and frictionless. as modelled
In section 6.4.3 a range of materials was modelled in the flatbottomed silo. This internal lower friction (and hence higher that of with a value materials a showed larger bin (figure 6.4). This the over a proportion endeffects of exhibited of v) value due larger be Poisson's is larger to the Poisson effect to ratio giving a assumed effect is high, leading in base the turn to more load being the vertical stress where near transferred to the wall. Figure 7.1 shows a plot of Poisson's ratio versus the depth at finite the which prediction. element prediction in the bin starts to deviate from the Janssen
104
Wheat
Sand
Coal
f Cemert
0.2
0.25
0.35
0.4
0.45
Figure 7.1  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. In order to investigate whether the observed endeffects are a function of the finite in silos, a number of models were represent a real phenomenon or element model have different boundary base These the conditions models at of the silo. created. Initially a flatbottomed axisymmetric silo is modelled and investigated and then a is hopper addedwith varying wall angles. concentric
7.1.1 Frictionless base condition Results for the model that was studied in the previous chapter are again presented here. Figure 7.2 shows the distribution of wall normal pressure at the bottom of the law linear the and the porous elastic/DruckerPrager elastic wall using law to
describe the ensiled material's behaviour. 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. Janssen the to close
105
LE w m
9.4 9.5 E 9.6 9.7 r 9.8 9.9 10 10 12 14 Wall normal pressure 16 (kPa) 18 20 
constitutive
laws
Only a small difference in the wall pressures predicted near the base is observed, attributable to the way the materials are modelled. The portion of the bin over which
9.1
9.2 9.3 9.4 'at 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10 10 12 14 WaN normal pressure 16 (kPa)
II
Janssen
atOriginal mesh Doubled mesh
18
20
Figure 7.3  Effect of doubling the mesh density on wall normal pressures
106
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. As a check on whetherthe observedeffect is causedby a density changethe analysis is rerun with the gravity load doubled. This would cause any density change to increase in magnitudeleading to the endeffect acting over a larger percentageof the however, is This that this shows analysis not the caseand further inspection of wall. the results showsthat the density changenear the basein the linear elastic model is in the region of 0.25%. This is insufficient to account for the increased pressureif the higher densityvalue is usedin the Janssen equation. Following theseobservations,the remainder of the analysis of the flatbottomed silo is carried out using the linear elasticmaterial constitutive law. 7.1.2 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. 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). 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 ( = 0.445). The following figure (figure 7.4) shows the effect of adopting a frictional base
base the the pressure wall normal near on comparedto the results from the condition frictionless simulation. original
107
Smooth base 
9.3 9.4
'AC 9.5 9.6 9.7
k=0.445
9.8
O
i. 16 (kPa) 18 20
base in an axisymmetric
bin
A difference in wall pressure can be seen in the final 0.3m of the bin wall. The final node experiences a pressure reduction of 7.5% compared to the original frictionless being base forced frictional The the the nature of prevents material outwards model. by the weight of the material above, this leads to the observed reduction in pressure in this area. This figure also shows that there are two endeffects in operation. In the final 0.3m 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. in any change the total depth). In order to further investigate this mechanism other artificial 0.71). The 0.09 ( and value of =0.71 = adopted values of .L were This effect also extends over the final 1m of the bin (10% of
friction 35.4 internal (4 4) therefore tan the coefficient = and materials == of 0.71). Using this coefficient of friction causes the stored material to "see" the base as The layer value of g=0.09 of material. another is chosen arbitrarily to observe the
from Results in figure these 7.5. Also, as analyses are value. 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. option coefficient a o0
108
which is physically
tied.
9 91 =9 2 =7 . 9.3
9.4
A=0.09 0.71
Rough base
9.5
E 9.s
9.7 9.8
9.9 10 8 10 12 Well normal 14 pressure 16 (kPa) 18 20
are slightly lower in magnitude than the are lower than those obtained
increases. value of In the case of the rough base condition, 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, and contact with the base, experiences a much that is due high This lateral friction to the pressure. coefficient of effectively reduced
109
in deformation is little Inspection the that there the shell radial shows of operation. deflection near the top of the silo. Moving down the wall this deflection increases to base. By fact 0.5m the the that the wall above virtue of approximately a maximum is base deformation base the the the very stiff radially, and wall connected are and in is is 0. It that this the therefore to proposed area wall effectively quickly reduces is back therefore the the the towards and solid observed endeffect stored moving in base in A the the model was constructed solid. which result of a passive pressure longer connected. no and wall are This allows the wall to expand at all levels
including near the base, and should therefore reduce the observed effect. Figure 7.6 frictional 0.71) frictionless (p for this the contact a and = model using results shows base between the and the stored solid. condition
9.2 Janssen prediction 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 w 9.7 9.8 9.9 10 05 Wall normal 10 pressure (kPa) 15 20  '~ 5mm wall, base and wall disconnected th b dition) base (smoo (smooth ase con condition) 5mm wall wall, , base and wall not connected (frictional base, friction coeffiecient = 0 71) 0.71) .  dition 5mm wa ll, smooth base con condition wall,
Figure 7.6  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. In the is base in below frictional there the the the a reduction at pressure contact model with Janssen value. This is due to stored material being restrained from radial movement friction. by base the along However, an increase in pressure above this region near
110
bin is invariant the the that across at any given level and in a stress assumes is found be to true. Figure 7.7 shows the distribution of this generally cylindrical silo horizontal and vertical stress through the stored material at a depth of 8m and 9.7m in the frictionless base model.
35
30
E+ m n 9.7m depth horizontal stress 9.7m depth vertical stress
25
20
+  8m depth horizontal stress k 8m depth vertical stress A value (Vertical stress) Janssen Janssen value (Horizontal stress)
15
of horizontal
The distribution of both horizontal and vertical stress is uniform at 8m depth and k is The Janssen 0.452 the ratio average values. calculated as which with well agrees is consistent with the material being modelled. The distribution of horizontal and vertical stress at a depth of 9.7m (which is inside from Janssen distribution) deviation is longer is the that a experiencing no the area uniform. There is a large increase in vertical stress and a decrease in horizontal stress
leads large in bin. This in finite k to the the the variations value the of of centre at k=0.39 k=0.57 the the at centre on solid and with model near the wall. element These results reflect those of Ooi and Rotter (1990).
111
Inspection of the results shows that the maximum shear within the material occurs
frictional increases due its This to the nature. shear with depth up to a wall near maximum. The shear reduces closer to the base because of the support the material
base. 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.
finite elementresults.
0
1 2 3 4 m
6
7
Down the majority of the wall the coefficient is as specified ( = 0.445). Nearer the base however, the effective coefficient of friction reduces, eventually diminishing to base. This in the effective value of 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. stress vertical of all supporting higher lateral leading bin in to the the stress at wall order to maintain of centre equilibrium.
The reasonthe friction is not mobilised near the base is due to the movement of the
to one another. 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.
112
base (which is fully supported in the vertical direction) stops the stored solid moving down the wall. friction. 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. The silo is again modelled as having the wall and base disconnected. 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. bin wall, distribution. leading to finite element predictions that are closer to the Janssen
9.2 9.3 ZIA 9.5 9.6 E 9.7 9.8 9.9 s Janssen distribution Base supported by springs Original model (connected base)
10
02468 Wall normal 10 pressure 12 (kPa) 14 16 18
Figure 7.9  Wall normal pressures from the model with springsupported
base
The initial observation is that this representation of the boundary condition increases the magnitude of the end effect. 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. Inspection of the normal and shear stress at the wall however,
friction is fully mobilised all the way because the that allowed movement, of shows down the bin wall with the prescribed value of =0.445.
113
7.3 Strain in the stored material Figures 7.10 and 7.11 show contour plots of the vertical and radial strain in the stored frictionless from base the taken original condition model. material
LE, LE22 (Ave. C[it.: I 9.928e05 3.220e04 5.448e04 7.676e04 9.903e04 1.213e03 1.436e03 1.659e03 1.881e03 2.104e03 2.327e03 2.550e03 2.772e03
75%)
2 1
ODB:
frictionlese.
odb
ABAQUS/Standard
6.21
Fri
Jul
05
Time
Step:
Step1
Var:
Increment Primary
Time
1.000
Deformed
Var:
Deformation
Scale
Factor:
+1.000e+00
model
LS, LEll (Ave. Crit.: +1.849e04 +1.345e04 +8.406e05 +3.364e05 1.679e05 6.721e05 1.176e04 1.681e04 2.185e04 2.689e04 3.193e04 3.69e04 4.202eo4
75%)
24 ODB: frictionleem. odb ABAQUS/Standard 6.21 Fri Jul 05 09: 28: 17 GMT Daylight Time
Time
1.000
Deformed
Var:
Deformation
Scale
Factor:
+1.000e+00
model
114
Figure 7.10 shows that there is a high compressive vertical strain at the centre of the bin near the base. The resulting Poisson effect leads to high tensile lateral strain at this point (figure 7.11) which in turn leads to high compressive lateral strain adjacent to the wall. prediction. This leads to the observed pressures that are higher than the Janssen This mechanism is shown in figure 7.12 illustrated by consideration of
two elements of material near the base of the silo. 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
/. 1L
AICCRSu1SW
Lu
7R: GVULII
1VI
UUSCI
VCU
CUUCIICCL
Inspection of the vertical deformation in the solid show that there is more downward If bin in to the than the wall. 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. to Once the this before the model, 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. near own under base is longer the However, the neared slice rigid can when no sag and the centre.
115
therefore the material at the centre experiences the observed increase in vertical
strain. In order to test this theory two more models are created, one with a 2 upward from base (sloping downward the transition) and upwards one with a sloping sloping base, also of 2 (sloping downwards from the transition). If the above proposed
decrease holds in the model that slopes true then the endeffect should mechanism downwards. 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. Conversely, the the upwards model should experience sloping wall of bin in increase the the the the material at centre endeffect since of will now be an down Figure 7.13 towards the the to wall. slope shows the results move attempting from these models along with the original flatbottomed bin for comparison. These frictionless base. have The the a contact condition on patterns of wall all models pressure observed are as predicted.
9.2 9 Janssen .3 " a 9.5 9.6 F 2' up Flat base 2' down distribution
9.4
E
9.7
9.8
9.9
10 L `lam
10
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 7.13  Effect of small angled hopper on the wall normal pressure prediction
model
A number of finite element models with differing boundary conditions have been investigated. The results obtained have shown that the choice of boundary condition
116
have a considerable effect on the accuracy of the pressures predicted when can made distribution. 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.
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. of larger Poisson effects near the base where the vertical strain near the centre is increasing. 7.5 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. It is not realistic to represent this type boundary therefore the supported and supporting ground condition must as model of be changed. The model is now supported at the junction of the hopper and the wall. This simulates the silo being supported from the ring beam as would be common in a silo of this type. practice The walls of the hopper are modelled as frictional with the same coefficient of
friction as the wall. The effect of the angle of the hopper on the wall pressures above the transition is investigated. The hopper angles ((x', consistent with definition figure 3.2) chosen initially are 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75. Figure 7.14 shows the wall pressures in the parallel section of the silo for the hopper in
117
9 9.1 ET9.2
n
9.3
9.4 9.5
Again only the bottom of the wall is plotted as results above this point compare well distribution. 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 flatbottomed case. The final node large inspection pressure and a very of the results shows that this node has exhibits into hopper, for large down the this the wall accounting normal pressure value. slid The pressures from this distorted element are therefore disregarded. Other
(Martinez 2002) have distortion et al, 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. Above the level of this fmal element there is a
decrease of pressure when compared to the Janssen distribution. As in the previous investigation the mesh was doubled to check whether the effects density. Figure 7.15 function the mesh of shows these results. seen are a
118
9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Janssen 45' original mesh 45' dense mesh
9.5
e 9.6
9.7
9.8
10
02468 Wall normal pressure 10 (kPa) 12 14 16
Figure 7.15  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. 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. observed transition have zero pressures implying that there is a loss of contact between the stored material and the wall at this point. 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. as such geometry changes The analysis is therefore repeated using the linear elastic/DruckerPrager model is denser 6. The figure Chapter in 7.16 shows the again mesh used and outlined from linear law. the those to elastic obtained results compared
119
9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Janssen = 45' LE law 45' PEDPlaw
9.5
laws
There is a very large difference in the predicted form of the pressure distribution. inspection of the results shows plastic strains forming near the transition which distribution. 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. Figure 7.17 shows the effect of changing the hopper angle on the wall normal pressure above the transition.
120
T e
9.3 9.4
30'  45"
gp"
9.5
T
e 9.6
9.7

75"
92 9.8
9.9 10
05 Wall normal 10 pressure (kPa) 15 20
Figure 7.17  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. 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. hopper lead is fully to the should wall a situation where vertical strain rigid a deforming) hopper is longer (since the no and an endeffect above wall compressive the value of the Janssen prediction will be observed similar to the flatbottomed model. The 15 hopper is therefore rerun with a fully rigid hopper wall and the
in figure for 7.18. the transition the above are shown pressures results
121
E t
,M1
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. 7.5.1 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. It therefore follows that
the deformations of the hopper wall will have an effect on the pressures in the hopper itself. Figure 7.19 shows the normal pressures in the hopper for the 5 angles chosen for the analysis. The results are presented in a plot of normalised depth below the transition level against the pressures. 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. modelled contact surfaces are
122
0
1 11 e 0.1
0.2 0.3 w
2 2))2
25 5
33 3
+15'
A' a
rAir Air
30'
4530' 45' 60' 60'
0.8 _ 0.9
1
27
75' 7s
Normal pressure
on hopper
well (kPe)
A pressure reduction just below the transition can be seen in the results for hoppers of Inspection deformed the of angles. 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. resulting Figure 7.20 shows a much
U,
2
ODB: 15pe. odb ABAQUS/Standard 6.21 Tue Oct 01 10: 35: 05 GMT Daylight Time 2002 Step: Step2 Increment Var: Primary Var: Deformed 34: Step Time U, Magnitude U Deformation 1.000 Scale Factor: +5.000e+02
123
The area that shows the largest deformations corresponds to the pressure reduction. 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. 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. If the wall deformations are reduced then the magnitude of reduction in pressure
be The 15 hopper is hopper in therefore the should reduced. model predicted including in Results a rigid are shown wall. repeated with varying wall stiffness figure 7.21.
0
0.1
0.2 0 03 E . 4 0 . 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 _ 0.9 + s
112
4
i
5mm hopper waft 8mm hopper waq hopper wall
'10mm
Rigidhopper wall
Normal pressure
on hopper
wall (kPa)
Figure 7.21  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. 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). Figure 7.22 shows the effective coefficient of friction in the models with different hopper angles. This friction coefficient is calculated by relating the shearto normal
the nodes. at stress
124
0
0.1 c 0.2 0.3 E 0.4 15 30  45 X E 60* 75
0.5 CL
0.6 0.7 0.8 z 0.9 1 Effective coefficient of friction on hopper wall
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. 7.6 Conclusion It has been shown that variations in the assumed base conditions in the finite element for base. the the prediction of wall pressures results near varying produce model can When modelling a flatbottomed bin there is an increase in pressure near the base. 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. end observed further testing appears sound. 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. 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. Such a model was attempted but elimination of the endeffect entirely was not possible.
125
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. However, 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. Using the PEDP constitutive law gives pressure predictions that are very much different to the results obtained from the LE constitutive law. 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. Finally, 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, especially when the hopper angle is shallow.
126
127
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. of this corner and load transferral is obtained from the observed wall pressure distributions and higher the the corners of silo. near stresses vertical
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. al et work of 8.2 shows the vertical stress patterns in sand at two levels from the finite element
model.
128
12.00 , ISO
11.00 10.50
_'
O. oo 9
. SO
9.00 6.50 _., .T' 9.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 "p o9, r, op'+ d 6.00
wry}
Figure 8.2  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. 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. random experiment carefully matter finite in the element analysis which will always produce the same results recreate boundary However, the the materials, conditions etc. same general patterns of given
129
by finite in the the element analysis, as are the are reproduced experiment observed lower stresses near the midside of the walls. 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. 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. 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.
(Ooi (2002) 1990). Rotter in the silo same et al, 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. Pieper Wenzel, 1965; ENV 19914,1995). sources g. and other and analysis Figure 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. Figure 8.4 shows the for gravel same In both figures the Rankine active ratio of k is plotted as well as k
130
0
0.25
Average k (FE) " " Average comer (FE) k Ak midside (FE) <Average _Average k (EXP)
0.5
0.75 I
1
o
0 a 0 1.25 E
1.5
1.75
I I
i l a
2.25
2.5
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 k 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
131
0
Average k (FE) 0.25 Ak k comer (FE) m ids id e( FE)
I
0.5 I ,
Average k (EXP) Average k comer (EXP) kcomer k midside (EXP) Rankine active
0.75
, 1
ENV 19914
o w 0 CL M 1.25
E g
1.5
1.75
I
I
2
AV 2.25 I " 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 k 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 L.
2.5
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. MohrCoulomb value of internal friction whereas these predictions are from a
DruckerPrager model which does not match the MohrCoulomb at all points (figure 5.16). 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
k by Eurocode (ENV 19914,1995). The the the of employed value other and with
local values of k are somewhatmore erratic. In the sand material, the midside values predicted by the finite element method are lower than those values obtained from the experiment. systematically much However, the corner values of k for sand are well matched. 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 averagefinite elementvalue is within 10% of the averageexperimentalvalue. The gravel material again shows good correlation of the average values compared k. 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. value of compared valuesof is larger in from than that the experimental results much observed calculated corner finite element model. However, the k valuesat the midside show agreementwithin 15% of each other.
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. 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, pressure peaks particular comer or some other phenomena). 8.3 Predictive law for wall normal pressures Based upon the experimental measurements of Lahlouh et al (1995), Rotter et al (2002) proposed an empirical model to determine the pressure distribution across the level. 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. This be referred to as the redistribution parameter. will a coefficient below. 8.1 given as The equation is
133
P="
saa
()2 cosh d
(8.1)
from is horizontal distance the the centreline of the is the mean wall pressure,x pm in The d is to the the the of comer pressure silo side. ratio midside width of silo and based deduced for (2002) Rotter that tests is the on et al the silo given as cosh a. implies This for 2. 2.5 the value gravel was about and sandthe value of a was about that sandshowsa higher level of redistribution across the bin wall than gravel. Using data. be to the distributions measured thesevalues, can calculatedand compared 8.3.1 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. 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. of pressure an of redistribution give structural
Figure 8.5 shows the experimentally determined distribution of wall normal pressure distribution. 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, 2002) but as this has been shown to compare well with the Janssen in design being for if be the taken used analysis. sand this were a model could value, is taken as Rotter et al's (2002) suggested value of 2.5.
134
,  2m depth, experimental
10
0
0 0.15 0.3 Distance from corner 0.45 of bin (m) 0.6 0.75
Figure 8.5  Wall pressure distributions from sand experiments and predictive law Figure 8.5 shows that the results from the predictive law (equation 8.1) 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. 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.
It must be noted that these distributions were generated using the suggested value of a=2.5. A better fit of the predictions to the experimental data could be achieved by
fitting least A the pm. exercise using squares method was performed and varying a between the experimental and predictive data for sand. Figure 8.6 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. (taken from Rotter et al, 2002). As before, the results are shown as a function of
depth from the top of the silo as per the original paper (Rotter et al, 2002) rather than depth from surface of fill.
135
0
Janssen distribution 0.5
oA oi +Experimental Best f Pm 1
0 CL 0 Q 1.5
IS
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). that the corner value was the same as that measured 0.05m from the wall. The
in law the very corner of the bin. 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. Figure 8.7 shows the best fit distribution in sand of the redistribution parameter a down the depth of the bin.
136
0 0.5 Q
1 CL 0
1.5 i" 02 Best fi to experimental dat
2.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 CoeffiCierd d 2 2.5 3
of the parameter
Figure 8.7 clearly shows how the original recommendation of a=2.5 determined.
away from this value nearer the surface and towards the transition.
This deviation
by boundary be to the these end effects caused attributed conditions. 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). Using the values of a and p. determined from the best fit exercise it is again possible to compare the predicted pressure distributions across the wall with the experimental 8.8 different levels Figure this in the sand. The two shows comparison at values. 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.
"
137
"
25 +1m
20
1 depth, predicted
15 a 10

5
0 0 0.15 0.3 Distance from corner 0.45 of bin (m) 0.6 0.75
resulting from best fit value of a compared to original data for sand (Lahlouh et al, 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. 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. between for The Im depth in the the experiment. agreement results would shown be 2m. 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. 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. 8.3.2 Comparison to experimental results in gravel A similar exercise to the one above was performed on the data for gravel. Rotter et
law for data depths to the two predictive compared using the value of a experimental = 2.
138
45
40 + lm depth, predicted 2m de de p th 2m th redicted redicted ,p ,p 1 m depth, experimental
T 35
30 25
2m dept h, experimental 
20
15
R 10
5
0
0 0.15 0.3 Distance from corner 0.45 of bin (m) 0.6 0.75
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. However, the predictive law does not This is
it did for the the the pressures at midside as sand. underestimate design from for a point of view reasons already mentioned. advantageous
Figure 8.10 shows the best fit values of pm against the Janssen distribution and the for integrated gravel. values original
139
in
2.5
05 10 WaN normal pressure 15 (kPa) 20 25
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, the values are closer to the systematically but down depth bin. the the average with some variation of original experimental Figure 8.11 shows the corresponding best fit values of a.
_E1.5
a
a2
2.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 CoeffIcetnt 2 n 2.5 3 3.5
140
The best fit to the gravel results produces very different values of a to those suggested by Rotter et al (2002). It was originally suggested that the approximate in be the order of a=2 should value very much greater than this. but figure 8.11 shows that the best fit values are
favouring the fit where the values are higher. This necessitates the value of a to be
high in order to produce the large curvature towards the corner of the bin. Finally, figure 8.12 shows the fit of the predictive law to the experimental data at two levels These fit best the values of a and p, are: values using n. 9 " Im depth; a=5.72 and pm= 5.21kPa (Janssen pressure= 4.74kPa) 2m depth; a=7.84 and pm= 9.18kPa (Janssen pressure= 8.98kPa)
45
" 40 R 35 4, Ju 25 20 15 10 1 +1m uf depth, predicted 2m depth, predicted 1m depth, experimental 2m depth, experimental
5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Distance from 0.4 corner 0.5 of bin (m) 0.6 0.7 0.8
resulting from best fit value of a compared to original data for gravel (Lahlouh et al, 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. experimental form seen in the sand and visually this compares well with the experimental observations. The high value of a causes the values of pressure predicted at the
lower be bin in than those to the the experiment. substantially measured of centre
141
finite law This to the element results. gives values of a and pmthat may be predictive
data. the experimental compared with Figures 8.13 and 8.14 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.
0 .o. s
CL 2
Es
w 02 1.5 
2.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 Coefficient 2 a 2.5 3 3.5
Figure 8.13  Comparison of a determined from finite element method and experiment in sand
142
0
 f0.5 E 1 a 0
YC G
m
0 1.5 c
For the sand material the maximum values obtained from the finite element model An in the the as experimental region work. overall value of a=2.5 same are might
is finite There for be the a noticeable effect towards element results. suggested also the transition where a increases and then reduces to 0 at the level of the transition. 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. 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. shows gravel in but to that the the values are a similar pattern seen sand shows values element slightly higher. 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, measured pressures can extremely variable. studied properties Figure 8.15 shows the wall normal pressures in sand determined by finite element fit bin. best in The levels law the is the to two these of predictive results at analysis The values of a and pm were: shown. also
143
9 "
lm depth; a=2.52 and pm= 4.42kPa(Janssen pressure= 4.51kPa) 2m depth; a=3.28 and pm= 7.08kPa(Janssen pressure= 8.26kPa)
30
25 FEA, 1 m depth
'0

20 
FEA, 2m depth
 Predictive, 1 m depth
0 0 0.15 0.3
Distance from corner
0.45
of bin (m)
0.6
0.75
The predictive law shows a very similar form of distribution to the finite element results. The values from the predictive law across the bin are within 5% of those At the 2m depth however, the experimental
in towards the corner rapidly resulting rises an underestimation of the pressure bin by law. the the the of predictive centre pressure at 8.5 Summary The work presented above revisits the work done by Rotter et al (2002). It shows that the predictive law proposed could be used as an effective design tool given different It be for geometries. 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. 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. This is important for the calculation of the bending moments as underestimation of the wall normal
144
lead being designed insufficient to the midside could walls with at strength. pressure Therefore it may be more useful to adopt a conservative value of approximately 2 for by (2002). 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, but would ensure that walls are not underdesigned. 8.6 Finite element predictions for an idealised wheat The experimental geometry is now modelled as filled with a wheat whose parameters in in 6. 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. so low is to stiff state pressures, assume a relatively under wheat material and gravel less stiff. much 8.6.1 Comparison to Janssen distribution Figure 8.16 shows the average wall normal pressure down the depth of the silo as distribution. Janssen the appropriate well as Also shown are the best fit values of pn,.
0
Janssen distribution
E
0
0.5
0 CL 0 E 1.5 f a 0
145
In this material the finite element predictions systematically underestimate the wall by 0.5kPa. 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). The best fit values of pm are very close to the
integrated values from the finite element model. The previously observed end effects due in to the softer nature of the stored material. this model reduced much are also
CL
c 2 a
31
0
0
0.15
0.6
0.75
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.
146
8.6.3 Patterns of vertical stress in the solid Figure 8.18 shows the patterns of vertical stress in the ensiled material.
4.80 4.70 4.60 4.50 4.40 4.30 4.20 4.10 4.00 3.90
Figure 8.18  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, is there a reduced. value of much vertical stress magnitude bin This from to the the the the near midside compared of wall. of arises corner near the stored material spanning between the stiff corners as detailed in figure 8.1. The in is in the the solid reflected stress of observed wall normal pressures redistribution (figure 8.17). 8.6.4 Average and local values of k in the solid Figure 8.19 shows the average and local values of k calculated from the finite element model.
147
0.25
0.5
0.75
0 0 CL E
1.25
i
_Average
mk Ak
k (FE)
I
1.5
'
1.75
2.25 I 2.5; 0 III1III 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 k 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Figure
8.19  Local
and average
values of k in wheat
The wheat material shows similar trends to the sand and gravel models. The average is Eurocode 10% lower. k This the value about with compared compares of value favourably with the values found in the previous materials. As would be expected is lower k than the average value and at the corner, higher. 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. confined corner near material and
148
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. 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. 8.6.5 Comparison with predictive law The best fit values of pm were shown in figure 8.16. These are systematically lower than the pressure predicted by Janssen as is the integrated pressure across the wall.
Figure 8.20 showsthe distribution of the parametera down the depth of the bin.
I0.5
Best fi to FE
CL "" E
w 1.5
The value of a is lower for this soft material than it is for the stiffer sand and gravel. This indicates that there is less redistribution redistribution of the pressure in this case. The
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. in is increase by in that there the and gravel sand no a towards the exhibited transition. This is due to the relative stiffness between the material and the wall
149
being much lower and therefore any extra stiffening effect at the transition has no measurableeffect on the value of a.
Finally, the results from the finite element model are compared to the predictive law
from determined best fit The levels. the two pm and a of exercisewere: values at
" " lm depth; a=1.37 2m depth; a=1.05 and pm = 2.26kPa (Janssen pressure = 2.72kPa) and pm = 4.36kPa (Janssen pressure = 4.73kPa)
7
u0 $ .0_ *FEA, 1m depth FEA, 2m depth Predictive, 1 m depth Predictive, 2m depth
51
0
0
0.15
0.6
0.75
of pressures across the wall from finite element model and predictive law in wheat
Again, this shows that the predictive law and the finite element method provide being 5% bin. 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. It gives no indication about from form an experimentalstudy. the obtained
8.7 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. were used element
150
the experiment and comparisons drawn. The finite element analysis has shown internal in distributions the solid, k values and wall normal of stress comparable pressures. The finite element method cannot however reproducethe random features in the stored solid causedby filling (for example). Thesefeatureshave been shown (Ooi et al, 1990). 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. The predictive law has also been compared to the finite element analysis and been shown to provide results that in form distribution. terms the the of each other with of are consistent Finally, a material that was not part of the original testing programme (wheat) has been modelled in the same geometry. This material was chosen due to its very different characteristics. 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. are noted redistribution
151
Theseparameters are varied to predict pressuredistributions and the factors that are critical to their assessment.
The first silo model will be of a 10m height and of plan dimension 1.5m square. This height is chosen in order to make the silo sufficiently deep to allow the Janssen
length is develop 1.5m. 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). The use of this boundary condition in discussed Chapter 7. 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. predicted redistribution parameter betweenthe silo wall and the stored solid. 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. this cylindrical parameter a was proposed pressures observed by 9.1. equation given relationship
152
a=
E5R
(9.1)
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. 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, would more characterise parameter form of the plate flexural rigidity, (Ut)3, would be incorporated. The plate flexural
Any relationship derived is likely to be of a higher order than the relationship given for the cylindrical bin. 9.2 Type of stored material The three granular materials that were investigated in Chapter 6 are now modelled in (1.5m The bin deep the 10m as used previously square). same planform of a increased investigation however, is 20mm. 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 investigation showed that when deformations defined large (as be thumb, 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. Further investigationof this is given in is, for limited below but to the 9.5.1 the now, cases work presented where section is deformation small. wall in bin this 9.1 the Figure wall normal pressures average using the three stored shows is The the wall normal pressure plotted average value of p1 materials. granular Rotter et al (2002) to the finite element law fitting by the of predictive obtained 9.3). (equation results
153
P= PC m sinh a)
2I Icoshl
`dJ
(9.3)
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. appropriate pressure also plotted. 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.
0 E2
3 w o4 5* Q. 8 99 910 02468 Wall normal 10 pressure 12 (kPa) 14 16 18 6 N . )K Best fit pm  sand Janssen sand Best fit pm  gravel Janssen  gravel Best fit pm w heat Janssen w heat
bin
In this deep bin it is easy to see that at a depth the Janssendistribution tends towards finite (constant) follow the this trend. The element value and results an asymptotic finite element predictions down the bin agree with the Janssen values within the bounds of experimental error. There are noticeable end effects and these are most
filled in (sand the the two As silos with stiffer solids and gravel). noted pronounced has been disregarded because the pressure recorded is the the node end previously into hopper. the the moving node result of
154
These results have been fitted to the predictive law (Rotter et al, 2002) and therefore been determined. In it have 8.3.1 section was shown that the value of a values of a for sand was fairly stable away from the surface and the transition. A deep bin
in demonstrate a stable value of a exists whether regions away from the should boundary conditions (surface and hopper). Figure 9.2 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 
3 n4
all
6+ 7 g 9 10 0 0.5 1 CoeFicent a
1.5
materials
As expected the value of a is fairly stable in the main section of the bin away from for 1.75 of sand, 1.65 for gravel and 0.45 for the ends with an approximate value wheat. 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. 9.2.1 Relative stiffness between wall and stored solid In each of the three materials above, different values of a occur at a given depth. This describes the varying degrees of redistribution in each of the granular solids. 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. stiffness) and wall
155
differences in three the the observed models above must be due to the stored same different The having stiffness'. equivalent elastic constitutive model used in solids the finite elementanalysisdoes not explicitly define a stiffness, nor can it be readily determinedbecause the constitutive law exhibits barotropy i. e. 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. a value give model and be determined. 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), a method for estimating the stiffness in each layer of elements was determined. Firstly, 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.
deformations occurred at this level due to the increased stiffness of the structure joint between hopper. 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. It was found that As a distribution for Janssen this was sufficiently accurate. stress vertical using a
level at each using the value of vertical stress performed were check, 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.
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. by 9.4. is equation given constantsand
156
)+l
(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.
Q111an+a33)
(9.5)
p =3
9.6. equation
3(12v)(1+eo) (p+ G2(1+ v)2 (9.6)
If the assumption of a linear isotropic material is made then it is possibleto directly 9.7. to equation stiffness using elastic this an value convert E= 2G(1+ v) (9.7)
Using these formulae the reference value of elastic stiffness at the transition was in 9.1. The table for three the results are presented materials. calculated each of Stored material Referencevalue of elastic stiffness (MPa) Sand Gravel Wheat 18.10 15.15 0.73
largest the that the 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. a may may therefore identify to to therefore investigation carried out attempt a more general Further was relationship.
157
be if The deformation is the the opposite could said on value of a. effect significant deformations down 9.3 Figure the the the centreline of of normal wall shows small. the silo described above when filled with the three materials.
o 1 2 3af 4 CL 5 .r E6 7 8 9 Sand
$Gravel Wheat
10
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 Wall deflection (wit) 0.04 0.05 0.06
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. the wall thickness would need to lower in order to induce some membrane tension
158
9.3 Planform
In the previous sections the silo studied was square with a width of 1.5m. This silo will now be increased in planform but will still be maintained square. The choice of 2m are square, 2.5m square and 3m square. The initial wall thickness planform sizes is chosen as 20mm. This is an arbitrary choice based upon the observed pressures and deformations above. 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. to avoid excessive enough The mesh density of the finite element model is kept the same as for the previous study. 9.3.1 Square planform silos with 20mm thick wall The results for the three different planforms of silo are again fitted to the predictive 8.1). The in figures (equation 9.4of normal values wall pressure are shown model 9.6 for sand, gravel and wheat respectively, as well as the appropriate Janssen distributions.
0 1 2
3 4 5
+
E 0
6
7 8

3m plenform, FEA
10 05 10 15 20 25 pressure 30 (kPa) 35
f 40 45
Wall normal
Figure 9.4  Wall normal pressures for sand in square planform silos
159
1 2 3 4
f2.
7 8 "
.
9
1U
10
20
Wall normal pressure
30
(kPa)
40
50
Figure 9.5  Wall normal pressures for gravel in square planform silos
0
1 .  2m planform, Janssen
2
3 45 11 6 7 11.IR
 i
2m pleform, FEA
2.5m plenf orm, Janssen 2.5m planform, FEA
.
Figure 9.6  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. 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. by predicted higher Janssen 35% the This than in to the prediction. of order rises are predictions This is in 3m in the wheat the same higher pattern model. not planform seen 57%
160
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. This effect is assumed to be a function of the flexibility of the silo wall. As the wall length increases the
flexural stiffness decreases. 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. 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 9.7). the thick the to walled results compared
0
2 3
E6
7 8 0 9 10 05 10 15 Mall normal 20 pressure (kPa) 25 30 35 saJanssen prediction Finite element prediction (100mm wall)
Figure 9.7  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 9.3) law (equation those silos with a larger side will the to predictive length. 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. Figures 9.89.10 show the values of a for the three silos above again for sand, gravel and wheat respectively.
161
o
1
2 3
ti
" 2m plenform 2.5m planform
3m plonform
8i oe
bins
0 1; 2 E3  sfin
4
6 w7
s 9 10 01234567 Coefficient .
bins
162
2m plonform
2
= M 3 ' 
2.5m planform
3m plan f orm
6 7
=E , _.
9 10
0 0.5 1 Coefficient a 1.5 2
bins
higher for longer the silos with As expected sides. 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. wheat material is but bulk The (for the solids) a wheat very soft material. granular stiff are relatively in for to tend towards appear a maximum gravel value whereas and a sand value of a increases. This does increasing is the planform steadily as not mean that the wheat for in the silos with wheat, merely that up to 3m is a value there not a maximum is not evident. 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. This indicates a very large amount of redistribution. high being due in the to the presence of the due is the to very corner This pressure hopper. leads This large the to the the meet walls observed where area stiff structural values of a. distribution in just horizontal the 9.11 of wall pressure sand above the Figure shows level where the bin meets the hopper for 20mm thick bins of varying planform.
163
120 100 1 80 o
40
20
0 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75 corner 0.9 1.05 1.2 1.35 1.5
Distance from
of bin (m)
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. 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. This leads to arching of
the stored material between the structurally stiff corners producing the observed lower pressures at the midpoint. 9.3.2 Stiffness of ensiled material The calculations detailed in equations 9.4  9.7 were again performed for the bins of 20mm The thickness. a wall with reference equivalent elastic planform varying level E, the transition the three materials at are shown in table 9.2. of modulus, Planform size (m) Reference equivalent elastic modulus, E (MPa) Sand Gravel Wheat
1.5
2.0
18.10
23.10
15.15
19.03
0.73
1.18
2.5 3.0
28.27 37.74
22.21 26.05
1.47 1.70
164
Table 9.2 shows that for the same granular material, the equivalent elastic stiffness deduced from the results changes with the planform size. Figure 9.12 shows the length between the of the silo wall and the calculated equivalent elastic relationship stiffness for the three stored materials.
40
35 1e
30 25 20 iS 15 10
W
Sand LL  GCQV6I
The relationships for all three materials are almost linear apart from the 3m wall length bin when filled with sand. Inspection of the wall deformations shows that the 3m bin experiences large deflections (w>0.5t) at this 20mm wall thickness (no matter is bins do It be the modelled as) whereas smaller the material not. 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. 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. of between the wall and the solid has a direct effect on the observed wall pressures (Ooi by extension, the stress state of the solid. 1990) Rotter, and and
in large is there present end effect someof these bins. Therefore in a As noted earlier between length the it is the the wall and to relationship value of study a order
165
is bin from that the theseend effects. The level to area of away study some necessary depth is because it depth. 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
the wall.
3.5 3
2.5
2
V
t 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 1.5 2 Length 2.5 of wall (m) 3 3.5 Sand Gravel Wheat
f 
This figure appears to indicate that rather than exhibiting direct proportionality, the At (20mm) it towards is not tend this thickness an asymptote. 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. It would therefore be advantageous to incorporate a study into the relationship between t and a. 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. could of wall geometry 9.4 Wall thickness In order to investigate the effect of the wall thickness, a number of tests were before (1.5m the small as geometry square planform) but with using performed
166
increasing values of t.
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 9.2 20mm The this thickness model section and used was wall versa. and vice in this section results are present for wall thicknesses of 10,15,20,30 and 100mm.
The choice of wall thicknesses used is arbitrary. As before, the finite element results in law (equation 9.3) for fitted to the to order obtain values predictive p,,, and a. were Figures 9.149.16 shows that there is almost indiscernible variation in the average in for level the three materials. any oft value wall pressure at a given
0
1 2 3 4 15 =
Janssen
t=100mm t30mm  t=20mm *t=15mm 
6 T
4
t=10mm
Figure 9.14  Average normal wall pressures down the depth of a 1.5m square planform with varying wall thickness (sand fill)
bin
167
0
1
2
Janssen
t=100 mm
3 4
6 7
8 9
10
05
10
Wall normal
15
pressure
20
(kPa)
25
30
Figure 9.15  Average normal wall pressures down the depth of a 1.5m 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 '= t100mm t30rrm t20mm
Figure 9.16  Average normal wall pressures down the depth of a 1.5m 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. the these wall very when results to the pronounced more down bin wall. Figures 9.179.19 law the of a at all points values gives predictive for all the wall thickness' in the three materials. distribution of a the show
168
Figure
9.1/
 variation
of OG wun
tiepin
in
Wins
UI varying
wau
LU1cKH
SS kSUHUJ
0x
x'
4`
 
t=100mm t=30mm
2 3 11 4
E7
. :
4k
9
10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Coefficient a 2.5 3 3.5 4
169
3 ` 4
5 E e 6 7 s' '
f'
9 =
*
t=10mm
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Coefficient 0.8 a 1 1.2 1.4
For the three materials the value of a increases in general as the wall becomes thinner. For sand and gravel, 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. The stiffness of the stored solid was again calculated. It is expected that this would be equal in all bins unless large deflections occur. This was shown to affect the different bins in Table 9.3 tests the on of planforms. stiffness elastic equivalent from finite Those in the element the results. calculated numbers stiffness shows italics indicate if large deformations are observed in the wall of the model (w/t > 0.5). Equivalent elastic stiffness (MPa) t 10 Sand 17.04 Gravel 13.87 Wheat 0.95
15 20
30
17.48 18.10
18.55
14.65 15.15
15.42
0.89 0.73
0.72
100
17.57
14.69
0.72
170
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. When the bin wall becomes very thick
et al, 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. Figure 9.20 shows the
beneath 6m the the thickness. the surface of solid wall with at a of variation
1.5
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. As t increases the value of a rapidly decreases and at t=30mm the When is t=100mm the reduced. value approaches zero and greatly redistribution figure is This implies there that no redistribution. shows that there is likely therefore
171
to be a point where the advantage of decreasingthe wall thickness reachesa limit as the maximum amountof redistributionis alreadyreached. 9.5 Relative stiffness of silo wall and ensiled material It was suggestedin section 9.1 that in the same way that the ratio R/t had been identified as a measureof the stiffness of a cylindrical silo, a form of the ratio L/t for flat is If be the the measure plates. wall considered to be made equivalent could from strips of unit width then the stiffnessof each strip is related to L3/t3. 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 9.8. the the and contents silo wall may estimated equation stiffness E,L3 Ewt3 (9.8)
Figure 9.21 shows this parameter against a for sand, gravel and wheat. Large deflection casesare ignored.
3 2.5
2t3
1.5 Sand fill III nd ASa 1 fill fGravel avel flA fGr *Wheat heat fil SW
0.5
Figure 911  Comparison of (Ea/E.). (L3/t3) with a in sand, gravel and wheat
172
It is not easyto create "small deflection" models that lead to high values (comparable ESL3/E,,, because the t3 using when wheat material of of the gravel) and with sand lead Large L/t large delfections. low to the values of solid. stiffness extremely The figure shows that an asymptotic situation is approached as the value of the increase in increase increases. An EL3/EWt3 the this value of signifies an parameter in the wall length, a decreasein wall thickness or a combination of both. The for be 2.3, for the to the gravel value sand appears around of a value asymptotic 1.8. for 2.7 be taken about and wheat as might 9.5.1 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. that shown when a e. w/t<0.5). small classified as is the the the of a and on value stiffness of solid. there effect a significant occurs Figure 9.22 shows the results for sand from figure 9.21 but with two large deformation casesadded. Theseare indicatedby the squaredata markers.
2.5
1.5 ts
0.5
(L'n) (EJEJ.
Figure 9.22  Effect of large deformations on the value of a
173
:,
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. However, due to the presence of large deformations, the value of the parameter ESL3/E,,, t3 is overestimated and therefore this graph is slightly misleading. 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. 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,,, t3 has increasedsubstantially. 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. appeared a earlier where 9.6 Variation of height of silo All the silos modelled in this chapter thus far have had a height of 10m. 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. Figure 9.23 shows the comparison of wall normal pressures in a 1.5m planform silo. The 5m high silo is shown against results for the 10m high silo. Results are shown for a fill. sand
174
0 1 2+
a
5 E6 7 9 10
05 10 Wag normal pressure 15 (kPa) 20 25
Figure 9.23  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. Moving down the bin the pressure deviates away from that in the 10m deep bin as the transition is reached. bin. deep Om l by the exhibited This pattern is also evident in the bins of different wall thickness, planform and when different Figure 9.24 shows results for 5m and materials. with they are modelled 1Om deep bins with 2m planform filled with wheat. The wall thickness is 20mm. This end effect is similar to that
175
5m deep bin
5 E6 7 8 9
10 02468 Wall normal pressure 10 (kPa) 12 14 16
Figure 9.24  Average wall pressures in a 2m square planform silo of different height (wheat fill)
Again, a similar pattern of results is observed. 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. 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. average The equivalent elastic stiffness of the materials was calculated and it was shown that highest level the showed of redistribution. 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. 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.
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.
176
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
The silo studied is a Im square planform and is constructed with a flat base. The is is 1.6mm. The is 1.5m 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. This method was chosenas it was felt that other techniqueswould have a detrimental effect upon the quality of the internal walls. When using sheet metal that is of such a thin gauge, welding or deformations local It has been fixing the near cause corners. 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. Tests in in the performed were on a range of strength adhesives sufficient determine they were of suitable strength to support the walls. to whether order Figure 10.1 shows an overall view of the silo rig. There is some staining visible on the front face of wall as a result of the metal sheets getting damp during delivery. However, the sheetswere mounted in such a way as to ensurethe internal faceswere free from this type of defect.
178
WT' C, l
`3A
1j..
R,
W,
SA: I
silo structure
This takes
it filler into box. 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 10.2.
Figure 10.2  Internal view of the filler box showing discharge holes
179
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. is discharge from filler This box into to then the the silo. allowed material conveyor. This process aims to give a level and evenly distributed fill. As the filler box is much be the than the must repeated several times until the silo is full. silo process shallower The silo is emptied by means of a large flap in the base of the silo. 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 10.3 Figure shows the chute and conveyor that takes material process. experimental into hopper. back the from the storage and silo away
Figure 10.3  The chute and conveyor for emptying the experimental
silo rig
10.1.1 Adhesive tests The frame of the silo is welded together. Into this frame is mounted flat metal
frame by adhesive. Tests were carried out on a to the These attached are panels. determine in this to method would provide enough whether order adhesives of range strength. As the silo is filled the deflection of the wall will cause the adhesive joint to The tests therefore performed action. replicated this action. a shearing experience Samples were prepared by bonding two strips of mild steel with a joint surface area
180
in 625mm2. These then mounted an Instron 8500 seriesmachineand loaded were of failure Table 10.1 showsthe resultsof this seriesof tests. occurred. until Adhesive type Araldite epoxy (type availablein DIY shops) Araldite rapid (type availablein DIY shops) Devcon 2 tonne epoxy Maximum load (kN) 5.848 3.137 2.053
Loctite 4080cynoacrylate
Araldite 2013 Araldite 2014
Table 10.1  Results from shear tests of different adhesives
9.332
4.928 7.204
The Loctite brand cynoacrylategives the strongestbond in thesetests. However, the for the quantitiesrequired and it disadvantageto this is that it prohibitively expensive has a limited storage life. The Araldite 2014 however is availablein large quantities, (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 approximately0.1m2 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. measure safety a ease. This section allows the walls to move but in the event of a failure will prevent the from the model completely. from away coming wall
10.2 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. rectangular of order extremely is in distribution by finite the the experimental silo as the predicted pressure whether if be be ideal it directly. the wall pressures could measured would element model However, this may not be possible for reasons discussed below and it may be
181
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. 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 10.4 height) Figure the the shows across wall an arbitrary pressure. taken from the finite element analysis performed previously. 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.
6 5
3 2ff Jam.
m1
0 0 0.15 0.3 Distance from
+
Hydrostdic pressure
Results from model fled wth send 0.45 0.6 0.75
corner
of bin (m)
from FEA deflections different Wall calculated 10.4 under normal Figure 
loading conditions
182
10.2.2 Strain in the wall Someresearchers (e.g. Chenet al, 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. wall inside the silo. However, this method makes a large number of assumptions which reduce the accuracyand has mostly been applied to circular silos which, being shells of revolution, are radically different to the plate type structure being studied here. The presenceof large deformations would almost certainly render this method unusable.
10.2.3 Wall normal pressures Obviously to directly measure the wall normal pressures in the silo would be the ideal case. There are two options available for directly measuring these pressures, both of which are based on pressure cells of the type developed by Askegaard (1961; 1978). 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. involved in these two types of cell follows.
10.2.3.1 Wall pressure cells Wall pressure cells for use in silo problems are usually based upon the design of Askegaard (1961). This designmeasuresthe pressureon the front face of the cell by transmitting this pressurethrough the face and into an oil filled cavity. The,pressure in this cavity is then measured by a semiconducter based pressure transducer. Assumptionsare made in the designof these types of cells but they have been shown to provide reliable results with a minimum of measuring error. However, one of is is that the wall rigid. 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. Figure 10.5 showsthe principlesof operation of this type of cell. 183
Pressuremeasuredfrom here
P
Fluid Compressiblemedium
Rigid wall
Cells of this type are generally constructedby removing a section of the silo wall and is important into front It this. 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, 1998). Investigation of some wall pressurecells of this type and the design of a cell for use in a thinwalled silo can be found in Appendix E. 10.2.3.2 Free field cells As an alternative to wall cells, free field cells which measurethe pressurein the solid can be used. These are basedupon the theory of an inclusion in an elastic medium (Eshelby (1957)) and their use has been well documented(MunchAnderson, 1982; Askegaard, 1995; Askegaard and Brown, 1995). 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. 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. Free field cells of the type shown in figure 10.6 are available for this project and ideal be the to solution. would seem
184
rR
Ej.
"y_
7'
yy;
yy
_r " rl
a"'
Figure 10.6  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. As previously stated, this type of cell is sensitive to errors induced
by the packing of the bulk solid around it. If a large normal deflection occurs at the behind large the that then the solid wall will undergo wall a plastic of midside deformation. This may adversely affect any cell that was placed in the bulk solid as
the model silo was filled. In short, although measuring the wall pressure would appear to be the only reliable demonstrate the nonlinear patterns of wall pressure that may exist, there are to way both It types of pressure cell available. with may therefore be associated problems is distribution by infer the that nonlinear 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. results may wall 10.3 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. due to the presenceof the anglesectionframework) the shell elementsin this area are
185
10.7 finite is Figure here the the pea gravel. shows element predictions of the used pressure down the wall compared with the Janssenprediction.
There is a large end effect associated with the finite element model. This is due to the flatbottomed base condition and similar effects were seen in Chapter 7. Overall finite element results is comparable to Janssen between the theory the and agreement the agreement seen in previous models. Figure 10.8 shows the distribution of pressure across the wall halfway down the bin (0.75m) from the finite element model.
186
12
10
Y
CL
8
d
CL 6
4 
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Distance from comer of bin (m)
rig
The ratio of
in be the 3 easily measurable experimental rig. should and around depth of 2.99.
Fitting the
finite 9.3) (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. This gives a (equation 9.8). The for the appropriate value of parameter stiffness relative value E3L3/EW, t3 for this silo is therefore 9242 and referring to figure 9.21 shows that, since is be large the to is of a predicted going value close to 3. value, this a very 10.4 Experimental results
The experiment was performed a number of times. The strain gauges attached to the filler filling box the commenced. via wooden and silo were zeroed The silo was
filled to the halfway point and then the pressure cells were placed in the gravel. Zero filled for The these then to the top taken cells. silo was and readings were readings taken from the pressure cells and strain gauges.
187
10.4.1 Pressures across the centreline Figure 10.9 shows the pressures across the centreline of the silo determined from the
12
10
$A
CL
4 C
2 0
0 0.1 0.2 Distance from corner 0.3 of wall (m) 0.4 0.5
Figure 10.9  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. 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. the the the of normal wall where midpoint 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. 2001). 10.4.2 Comparison with predictive law fitted to the predictive law outlined the are centreline The pressures measured across previously. This gives values of pm and a. Table 10.2 shows values determined from The This phenomenon has been noted by other researchers (Zhong el al,
Janssen the test as well as appropriate series pressure predictions. the three
Janssen values shown are calculated using ak value as recommended by ENV 1991
188
4 (1995) and using the Rankine active ratio. 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. solid stored
Test series 1 Test series 2 Test series 3
a
(kPa) pes,
3.53
3.14
3.85
3.68
3.24
2.11
4.38 2.76
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. Figure 10.10 shows the finite element, the measured and the best fit predictive law values of wall normal bin. in 0.5m 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
8CL ` 0
io
f f f
s 1
Distance from comer of wall (m) Figure 10.10  Predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) fitted to experimental results
189
Of course, due to the variability of the test results there is a similar variation in the results from the best fit to the predictive law. However, the previously proposed
predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) has again been shown to provide a good fit to experimental data. 10.4.3 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
.C,
o
Ydirection
A

Xdirection(experiment)
Ydirection (experiment)
200
100
100
200
300
400
500
Strain (s)
experimental rig.
Figure 10.11 horizontal in the the shows variation of wall. and vertical of strain determined from bin the down the the along midpoint as wall experimental and strain finite element models.
Figure 10.11  Horizontal and vertical strain down the centreline of the bin wall
Patterns predicted by the finite element model are repeated in the experiment. 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. The vertical stress in the wall
finite element model is repeated with reasonable agreement in the by the predicted experiment.
190
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
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 19914), 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
Intermediate Slender
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 modelscale 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.
1.5 0 ee
a 0.5
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 19914 (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.
2 3
w4 0 d V 5 6 7 ag 9 10 05 10 15 20 25 Wall normal pressure (kPa) Wall normal pressure (ENV 19914,1995) Normal pressure on long wall (Reimbert, 1976) Normal pressure on short wall (Reimbert, 1976) I
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
195
The structural design will be based on the wall pressures, but will also have implications for continuity at the corners, and the wall pressures that are developed. If the longer wall moves outwards away from the stored material, then if there is identical (i. the e. wall rotations about a vertical axis corners structural continuity at through the corner will be continuous) the shorter wall must move inwards  towards the stored material, and vice versa. The remainder of this Chapter will investigate pressures in some selected rectangular is important for filling flexibility forms, demonstrate the that pressures. wall silo and 11.3 Rigid walled silo ENV 19914 gives pressure predictions for rigid walled silos using the overall
hydraulic radius. A model was created 10m high with a hopper on the base. This hopper had an angle to the long wall of 45. The walls were fully restrained in all directions and the fill was sand. The fill surface was modelled as level. Figure 11.4 finite by long the the element model the on predicted and average pressures shows the short wall. The predictions from ENV 19914 are also plotted. Two different
0
1 2 3 t 4 5 6 8W  0 BAN 19914,1995 (2: 1) Short w all (2: 1) Long w all (2: 1)
146.
7
8 9 
10 05 10 15 20 25 Wall normal pressure (kPa) Figure 11.4  Long and short wall pressures in a 2: 1 planform from ENV 19914 (1995) ratio bin compared to predictions
196
This shows that for rigid walls the internal pressures are well predicted by ENV 19914 (1995). Figure 11.5 shows the 2: 1 planform ratio rigidwalled bin compared to the
predictions based upon equations 11.1 and 11.2 of Reimbert and Reimbert (1976).
0
1
2
3w 0 4 5
N
hi
19914 1995 ENV ENV 19914,1995 , Short wan wall Short  i)EX
6 7 8
9 A
34
XX
Long wall
Normal pressure on long wall 1976) (Reimbert, 1976) (Reimbert, Normal pressure on short wall
of Reimbert
This clearly shows that the predictions made by the finite element model do not agree be distribution. It Reimbert Reimbert Reimbert that may noted the and and with Reimbert based their calculations on a limited number of small scale experiments. The physical size of these experimental rigs give cause for concern as it is known that (MunchAnderson, influential 1983). be very can scale effects 11.4 Variation of planform ratio
Four planform ratios are considered. These are 1.1: 1,1.3: 1,1.5: 1 and 2: 1. These just that therefore to are out of square silos and represent pressures chosen are ratios different. be If large two silos of a not radically planform ratio are the will walls on be flexible longer 1) (e. 5: then the to the will so wall compared g. short considered dominate behaviour its between the that the will silo response and comparisons wall be difficult draw. to will two walls
197
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 19914 (1995). The actual sizes of the bins modelled are given in table 11.2. The boundary condition at the base is modelled as for the rigid walled model. The mesh density is kept the same as was used in the study of the square silo. Ratio Long wall (a) Short wall (b) h/de
6.67
silo models
Figures 11.611.9 show the wall normal pressures in the three different planforms of bin filled with sand. The wall thickness of the bin 20mm. The Janssen distributions
0
2 is d4
5
F8 6 7 8 9X 10 02468 10 Wall normal pressure (kPa) 12 14 16 mmWall 0 pressure (ENV 19914) 4.2 J4
Figure 11.6  Wall normal pressure in a 1.1: 1 planform ratio silo (sand fill)
198
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 19914) tShort wall (FEA)
0
2
iE 3 4 5 6 Wall pressure (ENV 19914) gt 9 10 05 10 15 20 25 Wall normal pressure (kPa) XShort wall (FEA) Long wall (FEA)
'7,4,4L
199
2 3 0
v 4
y5
Wall t
7 X 9 10 05
10
15
20
25
30
The initial observation is that the pressures predicted by the finite element method disagree with the predictions from the Eurocode. 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). Reimbert Reimbert and of By inspection of the wall deformations it is
identify the mechanism that explains this phenomenon. In the rectangular to possible bin the pressure acting on the long wall causes a moment about the corner of the bin. 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. This corresponds to a change in state from active on the long failing) is it (it is being (i. towards the passive on short wall e. compressed). This wall higher Figure 11.10 the pressures. shows an exaggerated contour observed causes deformation The is the the top the magnitude silo walls. of of shown. This plot of deforming longer (i. from the outwards the stored wall e. away shows clearly plot inwards deforming (i. towards the stored material). the e. shorter wall and material)
200
U,
Magnitude
)r
17
9:
L"'
Daylight
Time
2002
31
, U
1: Ma
to t T me ni ud ef ion
{ Scale
actor:
+5.000
Clearly, for flexible rectangular bins there are shortcomings in the current theory. In this unstiffened case the observed pressures, whilst still conforming to a Janssen form by distribution, the theory. predicted are poorly of Figures 11.1111.14 show the same three bins but filled with wheat material.
0 1 2 3 0
d4 u
5 6 L7 8 9 10 012345678 Wall normal pressure (kPa) Wall pressure (ENV 19914) 0Short wall (FEA)
 *
Longwall (FEA)
201
0
2 3
04 v 5 E6 6 87 Wall 8 Short
910
0123456789
Wall normal
pressure
(kPa)
0
1 E2 is 0 3 4 S 6 '7 $' 8t g 10 02468 Wall normal pressure (kPa) 10 *Wall pressure (ENV 19914) Short wall (FEA) Long wall (FEA)
202
E2 0 454 4
N
6 L
7
8 9100X
Wall pressure (ENV 19914) Short wall (FEA) Long wall (FEA)
10
12
The average pressure down the bin wall follows a similar pattern to that observed in the sand model. Inspection of the wall deformations shows that the mechanism
in the this model. the around corner also rotate occurs walls whereby 11.5 Variation of wall thickness
In order to investigate the effects of wall thickness, one particular rectangular silo has been analysed. The aspect ratio  the ratio of the longer side to shorter side (a/b) is initial In has 1.5: 1. been kept thickness this study, wall as constant for both chosen long and short side walls. Three different wall thicknesses have been used: 10mm,
15mm and 20mm. The stored material is modelled as Leighton Buzzard sand. The (5m depth) at midheight normal pressures wall of are shown in Figure variation 11.15.
203
0 UW 
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
1.125
1
0.125 0.25 0.875 0.75 0.625 0.5 0.375 0.25 0.125 0 Distance from comer of wall (m)
0.375
0.5
0.625
0.75
bin of planform
ratio 1.5: 1
The long wall shows a much lower pressure at the midpoint compared to the short wall. This can be attributed to the decreased flexural stiffness of the wall. The
higher values seen on the short wall can be attributed to the rotational effect observed. For all three wall thicknesses, the previously reported normal pressure variation is present. 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). Figure 11.15 shows the redistribution of wall normal stress across the wall for three different wall thicknesses. The section is chosen  somewhat arbitrarily  as the midheight of the bin section (i. e. at a depths of 5m). At the corner of the bin the orthogonal differ. stresses Assuming the major principal stress is vertical, 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. wall.
204
11.6 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 19914 (1995). The suggestionsof Reimbert and Reimbert (1976) appear to disagreewith the predictions for rigid walled silos. When the wall is made flexible the patterns of pressure predicted by the finite element model becomemore unpredictable. 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. ratio planform aspect More efficient rectangular silos might be designed if these reduced wall pressure ductility in joints. If the with sufficient vertical corner exploited, are phenomena designs are enabled that allow reduced midside wall pressuresto be used, a thinner becomes important be Structural in several efficiency used. 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
base Janssen increase the the pressures near predicted of the silo, and above pressures confirm previously reported results. A mechanism was proposed that explains the hoppers, it In models with axisymmetric was noted that, even observed pressures. though these models were relatively thickwalled, small deformations of the hopper both large below have the to the effects on wall pressures above very and were shown transition.
A parametric survey was carried out on a squareplanform silo and investigated the effect of varying the stored solid, the wall thickness and the planform size. 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. level of redistribution of pressureacrossthe wall and therefore there is a limit to the be by further to made reducingthe wall thickness. savings structural
206
An experimentalsilo with a very thin wall (1.6mm) showed patterns of wall pressure that agreed with the finite element model and the redistribution law of Rotter et al (2002). 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. 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. distributions. in the the observedpressure silo resulting comer of 12.1 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. This is plastic cases) account especially simple axisymmetric true in thinwalled silos. " Common parametersused to classify bulk solids (such as 0) may not be sufficient to have some to accuratelymodel their behaviour in silo problems. 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. increases. feature This be incorporated the stress overall as stiffens must material in any constitutive model for noncircular silos. " Endeffects 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. stored " In axisymmetric silo problems the flexibility of the hopper has a large effect on both above the transition and in the hopper. Even when the hopper the pressures is modelled with thick walls, small deformations that occur can have a radical
effect on the pressure regimes.
207
"
Simple onedimensionalconsolidationtests on granular bulk solids were shown to provide material parametersthat resulted in finite element predictions which data. agreedwell with experimental
"
Analysis of threedimensionalsquare silos shows that the value of k is not is depth. 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.
"
The predictive law of Rotter et al (2002) gives a good representation of finite for in A the the original across wall. pressures material not used elementresults paperwas modelled(wheat) and the patternsseenpreviously were predicted.
"
Following a previous study, a parameter a to characterise pressure disrtibutions has been postulated. This work shows that it relies on the relative stiffness There is an asymptotic value of a for a
is there therefore a theoretical limit to the amount of stress given material and redistnbution. It was also shown that if large deformations occurred the value of
based hard to upon the proposed relative stiffness parameter. predict a was " An experiment using a very thinwalled silo was conducted and the showed that the finite element predictions were a good comparison. The results obtained
fitted the predictive law very well and the values of a agreed with the patterns predicted by the relative stiffness parameter. Large deflections did not occur.
"
Current methods for the prediction of the pressureson the long and the short wall in a rectangular silo are inadequate, when the silo wall is flexible. 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. (1995) ENV 19914 that was only applicable to silos that featured rigid shown be to this appear a shortcoming. would and walls
208
, t
12.2 Further work During the course of this research a number of avenues of exploration have been identified. " Fill method; the work presented here used an incremental gravity fill method but other researchershave used a layered fill method. It would be of interest to investigate whether results would be affected dependent on which method was
is used,andwhich moreappropriate.
" Hopper pressures; in there are a number of theories for the prediction of pressures hoppers. 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.g. mass flow, funnel flow, eccentric etc). " Stiffened silos; it was noted that rectangular silos are often stiffened. The finite
investigate be to the effect of these stiffeners on could element model used distributions. pressure
" Rectangular silos; 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, especiallythose with very flexible walls. " Discharge pressures;this work has been solely interested in pressuresexerted on the walls of a full silo. The natural extension to this work would be to move towards a modelthat could predict the pressuresduring discharge.
209
References
ABAQUS usersmanual (2001), Version 6.2, Hibbitt, Karison & Sorensen Inc.
Airy, W. (1897), "The pressureof grain", Minutes of Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., London, Vol. 131, pp. 347358.
Arnold, P.C., McLean, A. G. and Roberts, A. W. (1980), Bulk Solids: Storage, Flow Associates,2d edn., University and Handling, Tunra Bulk Solids Handling Research of Newcastle, Australia.
Askegaard, V. (1961), "Measurement of pressure between a rigid wall and a by medium means of pressure cells", Bulletin No. 14, Structural compressible Research Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, Kobenhavn.
Askegaard, V. (1978), "Stress and strain measurements in solid materials", Report No. 92, Structural Research Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark,
Kobenhavn.
Askegaard, V. (1989), "Three componentpressurecells for steel model silo", Report S.8817, Dept. Struct. Engng., Tech. Univ. of Denmark.
Askegaard, V. (1995), "Applicability of normal and shear stress cells embedded in Experimental Mechanics,Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 315321. materials", cohesionless
210
Askegaard,V. (1998), "Normal and shear stress on a silo wall, and stress and strain Theory Fundamentals Design, Brown, C. J. Silos, in of and and medium", a silo state Nielsen, J., E& FN Spon.
Askegaard, V., Bergholdt, M. and Nielsen, J. (1971), "Problems in connection with MeddeleLser, in Byggningsstatiske 3373, silos", pp. pressure cell measurement Copenhagen.
Askegaard, V. and Brown, C.J. (1995), "Influence of Personal Factor on Cell Handling, Cells", Bulk Solids 15, Pressure Embedded Mounting Response vol. when no.25, pp. 221224.
Bares, R. (1979), Tables for the Analysis of Plates, Slabs and Diaphragms Basedon by (English Carel GmbH Bauverlag 3`d translation Theory, Elastic van ed., the Amerogen), Macdonaldand Evans Ltd.
Been, K., Jefferies, M. G. and Hachey, J. (1991), "The critical state of sands", 41, No. 3, pp. 365381. G6otechnique
Bishop, A. W. and Henkel, D.J. (1957), The Measurementof Soil Properties in the
Triaxial Test, Arnold.
Boyce, H. R. (1980), "A nonlinear model for the elastic behaviour of granular Microstructural loading", materials under repeated Science, vol 1, pp. 285294.
Brown, C.J. (1998), "Rectangular silo structures", Silos, Fundamentalsof Theory and Design,Brown, C.J. and Nielsen, J., E& FN Spon.
211
Chen, J.F., Ooi, J.Y. and Rotter, J.M. (1996), "A rigorous statistical technique for inferring circular silo wall pressures from wall strain measurements",Engineering Structures, Vol 18,No. 4, pp. 321331.
Chen, J.F., Rotter, J.M. and Ooi, J.Y. (1999), "A review of numerical prediction in Structural Advances Engineering, for Vol. 2, No. 2, pressures", wall silo methods pp. 119135.
Chen, IF., Yu, S.K., Ooi, J.Y. and Rotter, J.M. (2000), "Finite elementprediction of filling pressuresin a ring stiffened imperfect fullscale silo", Proc. 14th Eng. Mech. Conf, ASCE, Austin, Texas.
Coulomb, CA
1'architecture", de Memoires Mathematique de de a statique, relatifs quelques problemes rAcadamie Royale des Sciences,pp. 343382.
DIN 1055 (1987), "Design loads for buildings: loads in silo bins", DIN 1055 Part 6,
Deutsches Institut fr Normung, Berlin.
Drucker, D. C. and Prager, W. (1952), "Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design", Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, vol. 10, pp. 157165.
Eibl, J. (1998), Assorted papers in Silos, Fundamentalsof Theory and Design, Brown, C.J. and Nielsen, J., E& FN Spon.
Emanuel, J.H., Mahmoud, M. H., Best, J. and Hasanain,G.S. (1983), "Parametric interaction", Powder Technology,36, pp. 223233. silomaterial study of
212
ENV 19914 (1995) Eurocode 1: Basis of design and actions on structures,Part 4Silosandtanks,CEN, Brussels.
ENV 19984 (1999) Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake resistance of CEN, Brussels. 4Steel Part tanks and pipelines, silos, structures,
Eshelby,J.D. (1957), `The determinationof the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion 241, 376396. Series 1226, Society A, Royal Proc. vol. no. pp. andrelatedproblems",
Feise,H.J. and Dai, A. (2001), "Building a numerical model for bulk solid materials from standardsheartest data", 7t' Int. Con Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Australia. Newcastle, Transportation,
Fundamentals of Theory and Design, Brown, C. J. and Nielsen, J., E& FN Spon.
Fischer, W. (1966), "Silos und Bunker in Stahlbeton", Veb Verlag Fr Bauwesen, Berlin.
Gamier, J., Ternet, 0., Cottineau, L. M. and Brown, C.J. (1999), "Placement of No. 3, 405414. 49, Geotechnique pp. cells", pressure embedded Gaylord, E.H. and Gaylord, C.N. (1984), Design of Steel Bins for Storage of Bulk New Jersey. International, Solids,PrenticeHall
Goodey,J., Brown, C.J. and Rotter, J.M. (2001), "Finite elementpredictionsof filling Con Bulk 7te Int. Materials Storage, Handling in steel silos", and presstures rectangular Australia. Newcastle, Transportation,
213
.,t s
Games, D., Ragneau,E. and Kerour, B., "3D finite elementsimulation of the wall " 14thEngineeringMechanics flexibilty in a square silo during filling and discharge, Conf., university of Texas,Austin, Texas,May 2000.
Document D2: 1984, Swedish for in large Council Building silos", grain pressure
by Holst, JMF. G., Ooi, J.Y. and Rotter, J.NL (1996),"Filling and discharge stages
finite element analysis, CA SILO CollaborativeAction WG4, Internal report for the EuropeanWorking Group, Rennes.
de Consolidation Elastoplastique, Hujeux, J.C. (1979), Calcul Numerique de Problemes Ecole Centralede Paris. These de DocteurIngenieur,
Ibrahim, A. G. and Dickenson, R. P. (1983), "Analysis of silomaterial interaction for for Conf Design Silos Strength Int. Flow, Stratford 2d of and coal", upon powdered , Avon, England.
Jaky, J. (1948), "Pressures in silos", Proc. 2" Int. Con On Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam.
Janssen,H.A. (1895), "Verasche ber Getreidedruckin Silozellen",Zeitschrift VDI, 10451049. 35, 39, pp. no. voL
Jarrett, N. D. (1991), "A study on the influence of wall flexibility on pressure in Brunel University. PhD Thesis, silos", rectangular
214
in a Jarrett, N.D., Brown, CJ. and Moore, D.B. (1995), "Pressure measurements 95104. 45, 1, Geotechnique, pp. vol. no. silo", rectangular
Jenike, A. W. (1964), "Storage and flow of solids", Bull. No. 123, Utah Engineering ExperimentStation,University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Jenike, A. W. and Johnson, J.R. (1968), "Bin loads", Journal of the Structural
Jenkyn, R.T. and Goodwill, D.J. (1987), "Silo failures: lessons to be learned", EngineeringDigest(Toronto), vol. 33, no. 8.
Jofriet, J.C., LeLievre, B. and Fwa, T. F. (1977), "Friction model for the finite Trans. ASAE, 2C(4), 735744. pp of silos", elementanalyses Khelil, A. (1998), "Internal structures (ties and internals)", in Silos, Fundamentalsof Theory and Design,Brown, C.J. and Nielsen,J., E& FN Spon. Kolymbas, D. (1988), VerffentL Inst. Bodenmech.Felsmech. Univ. Karlsruhe, Heft 109.
Lahloub, E.H., Brown, C.J. and Rotter, J.M. (1995), "Loads on rectangular plan form University Edinburgh. R95027, Report Research of steel silos",
Lee, K.L. (1970), "Comparisonof plane strain and triaxial tests on sands", Proc. of ASCE,VoL 96,No. SM3, pp. 901923.
215
Levy, S. (1942), "Square plate with clamped edgesunder normal pressureproducing large deflections", National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics,Tech. Note 847.
Levy, M. (1899), "Sur l'equlibre elastique d'une plaque rectangulaire",C. R Acad. Sci., 129, pp. 535539.
Lightfoot,
E. and Michael, D. (1966), "Prismatic coal bunkers in structural Engineer, Vol. 44, No. Structural 2, 5562. The pp. steelwork",
Link, R.A. and Elwi, A. E. (1987), "Incipient flow in silohopper configurations", Journal of Engineering Mechanics,Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 172188.
Mahmoud,
flexible grain bins", Jnl. Powder Bulk Solids Tech., 5(3), pp. 1219.
Martinez. M. A., Alfazo, I. and Doblare, M. (2002), "Simulation of axisymmetric discharging in metallic silos. Analysis of the induced pressure distribution and different Engineering Structures, 24, pp. 15611574. standards", with comparison
Mayne], K. (1808), "Traite experimental, analytique et practique de la pousseedes terres et des murs de revetement", Paris.
MunchAndersen, J. (1983), "Scale errors in model silos tests", SecondInternational Conference on Design of Silos for Strength and Flow, StratforduponAvon, UK, November.
MunchAndersen, J., Askegaard, V. and Brink, A. (1992), Silo model tests with sand, SBI Bulletin 91, Danish Building ResearchInstitute.
216
Nanninga, N. (1956), "Does the conventional method of calculating bin pressures " (In Dutch), Ingenieur,44 pp. 190194. give correct results?
Nedderman, RM. (1992), Statics and Kinematics of Granular Materials, Cambridge University Press.
Nielsen, J. (1979), "Opmaling of silo i Karpalund", Report No. 4, Department of Structural Engineering, TechnicalUniversity of Denmark, Lyngby.
Nielsen, J. (1983), 'Load distribution in silos influenced by anisotropic grain behaviour", International conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation, Institutionof Engineers, Newcastle, Australia
from flowing", Phil. Trans. R Soc. Lond., 356, pp. 2667Nielsen, J. (1998), "Pressures 2684.
Nielsen, J. and Andersen, E.Y. (1982), `toads in grain silos", Bygnmgsstatiske VoL 53,No. 4, pp. 123135. Meddelelser,
Nielsen, J. and Weidner,J. (1998), "The choice of constitutive laws for silo media", in Silos, Fundamentals of Theory and Design, Brown, C.J. and Nielsen, J., E& FN Spon.
Ooi, J.Y. (1990), The Mechanical Behaviour of Bulk Solids and the Prediction of PhD. Thesis,University of Sydney. Wall Pressures,
Ooi, J.Y., Pham, L., and Rotter, J.M. (1990), "Systematic and random features of fullscale on silo walls", EngineeringStructures, 12 (2), 7387. measuredpressures
217
(I
Ooi, J.Y. and J.M. Rotter (1990), "Wall pressures in squat steelsilos from simplefinite Computersand Structures, element analysis", vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 361374.
Ooi, J.Y. and She, K. M. (1997), "Finite element analysis of wall pressure in imperfect silos", Int. J. Solids and Structures, Vol. 34, No. 16, pp. 20612072.
Ooi, J.Y., Chen, J.F., Lohnes, R.A. and Rotter, J.M. (1996), "Prediction of static wall pressuresin coal silos", Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.
109116.
Pieper, K. and Wenzel, F. (1965), `Pressee conditions in silos, Concrete and Engineering,vol 60, no. 4. Constructional
Ragneau,E. and Anbert, J.M. (1993), `Prediction of loads in silos during filling and finite by a element method", 2m Int. Con On Micromechanics stages emptying of GranularMedia.
Ragneau, E., Aribert, J.M. and Sanad, A. M. (1994), "Modelisation numerique par element fini tridimensionnel pour le calcul des actions aux parois des silos (remplissage Construction Metallique, No. 2. et vindange)",
Ragneau,E, Ooi, J.Y. and Rotter, J.M. (1998), "Finite elementmodels for specific Theory Silos, Fundamentals of and Design, Brown, C.J. and Nielsen, J., applications", E& FN Spon.
Rankine,W.J.M. (1857), "On the stability of loose earth", Phil. Trans.,Royal Societyof London,Vol 147.
Rennnbert, M. and Reimbert, A. (1976), Silos: Theory and practice, Trans Tech Publications, Revised 1987.
218
Roark, R.J. and Young, W.C. (1975), Formulas for Stress and Strain, McGraw Hill Kogakusha,Tokyo.
Roberts, I. (1884), "Determinationof the vertical and lateral pressures of granular Proc. R Soc.London,Vol. 36, pp. 225240. substances",
Roscoe, KH.,
r, Design of Steel Rotter, J.M. (1985a),"Membranetheory of shells for bins and silos Bins for the Storageof Bulk Solids,School of Mining and Civil Engineering,University
of Sydney.
Rotter, J.M. (1985b),"Bendingtheory of shellsfor bins and silos', Design of Steel Bins for the Storage of Bulk Solids,School of Mining and Civil Engineering,University of Sydney.
Rotter, J.M. (1986), "The analysis of steelbins subjectto eccentricdischarge",Proc. Irrt. Con On Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation, Institution of Wollongong,Australia. Engineers,
Rotter, J.M. (2001), Guide for the Economic Design of Circular Metal Silos, Spon Press.
Rotter, J.M., Brown, C.J. and Lahlouh, E.H. (2002), "Patterns of wall pressure on filling a squareplanform steelsilo", EngineeringStructures,24, pp. 135150.
219
Rotter, J.M., Holst, J.M. F.G, Ooi, J.Y. and Sanad, A. M. (1998), "Silo pressure predictions using discreteelementand finiteelement analyses", Phil. Trans. R Soc. Lond., 356, pp. 26852712.
Rotter, J.M., Ooi, J.Y., Chen, J.F., Tiley, P.J., Mackintosh, I. and Bennett, F.R. (1995), Flow Pattern Measurement in Full Scale Silos, British Materials Handling Board publication, Ascot, UK, 230pp.
Runesson,K. and Nilsson, L. (1986), "Finite element modelling of the gravitational flow of a granularmaterial", Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 877884.
Schumaker,L.L. (1981), Spline Functions: Basic Theory, John Wiley and Sons.
Trabair, N. S. (1985), "Characteristicsof structural form", Design of Steel Bins for the Universityof Sydney. Storage of Bulk Solids,Schoolof Mining and Civil Engineering,
Tresca, H. (1864), "Sur 1'ecoulementdes corps solids soumis a de fortes pression", Compt. Rend., Vol. 59.
Troitsky, M. S. (1980), "On the structural analysis of rectangular steel bins", JnL of Powder and Bulk Solids Tech., 4(4), pp. 1925.
Von Karman, T. (1910), "Festigkeitsproblemeim Muschinenbau", Encyklopaedie der MathematischenWissenschaften, Vol. 4, p349.
Von Mises, R. (1913), "Mechanik der festen koerper in plastisch deformablem Math. Goettinger Nachr. Phys.,pp. 582592. zustand",
Walker, DM
in silos with vertical walls," Walters, J.K. (1973a), "A theoreticalanalysisof stresses Chem Eng. Sci., VoL 28, No. 1, pp. 1321.
in axiallysymmetric hoppers Walters, I K. (1973b), "A theoreticalanalysisof stresses andbunkers",Chem Eng. ScL,Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 779789.
des Wilde (1979), Principes matlenatiques et physiquesdes modeleselastoplastiques FrancoPolonais de Paris,LCPC, France. Compterendudu colloque colspulverulents,
Wu, Y. H. and Schmidt, L. C. (1992), "A boundary element method for prediction of silo
Zhang, Q., Puri, V. M. and Manbeclc H.B. (1986), "Finite element modelling of thermally induced pressuresin grain bins filled with cohesionless granular materials", Trans.ASAE, 29(1), pp. 248256.
Zhang, Q., Puri, V. M. and Manbeck,H.B. (1986), "Finite elementpredicted static and in bins", loads Trans.ASAE, 32(6), pp. 21312136. induced thermally grain
Zhong, Z., Ooi, I Y. and Rotter, J.M (2001), "Me sensitivity of silo flow and wall Structures, 23, pp. 756767. to filling n thod", Engineering stresses
221
Zienkiewicz,O.C. and Taylor, RL. (1989), The Finite Element Method (4' Edition), McGrawHill
222
Publications
(2001),`Tinte elementpredictionsof filling Goodey, R.J., Brown, CJ and Rotter, J .A Conf. 7th Int. in Bulk MaterialsStorage,Handling and steel silos", pressures rectangular Newcastle, Australia. Transportation,
223
V,
rigure
A. i r
quunonum
rvusiueruL4ou
The relationshipbetweenthe pressureon the wall and the friction coefficient is given by equationA. 2. =p ph
(A. 2)
The relationshipbetweenthe horizontal and vertical pressureis taken as constant and definedby equationA. 3.
224
ph
kpr 
(A.3)
A. 4 and A. 5 for the vertical and horizontal pressureon the wall respectively. P. _ (1ev)PR) (A. 4)
Ph =2
(1e1kr/R)
(A'S)
225
''i
being defined incorrectly and having a negative volume or turning inside out. This type of error will causethe Abaqussolver to terminate the analysis. Coarse Mesh 1
Total no. of elements 297
Fine Mesh 2
527
Mesh 3
1013
Mesh 4
1711
Mesh 5
2657
Figure B. 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.
226
15
25
Mesh 1
Mesh 3
Mesh 5
The choice to monitor the displacement of the bin is an arbitrary one. Any of the feasibly be could variables monitored. output Figure B. 2 shows the displacement of
1.2 11.18
1.16 c
1.14 1.12 1.1 S
1.08 1.06 = 1.04 0 500 1000 Number 1500 of elements 2000 in model 2500 3000
It shows clearly that the value of the displacement tends towards 1.18mm and that 5 3,4 indicates the This give and most that any mesh above accurate results. 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.
227
name:
Model1
Define title
job
Define
nodes
**
*Node 1,0.75, 2,0.75,0., 0.68,0.71 0.
for
XYZ
walls
in
format
etcetcetcetc319,0.45,2.375,0.
320,0.6,2.375,0. *Element, type=S4 Define shell
elements walls
for
nset=wallsl. elset=walls1.
1,320,1 1,283,1
SECTIONS
_G16, _G16,
generate generate
Define element
wall sets
node and
**
** Section: walls Section, *Shell elset=walls1. 0.006,5 ** **
**
material
thickness _G16, material=steel fori for
XYZ
and
PART
INSTANCE:
solidi
iddi solid
format
inn
*Node
321,1.72456e31,0., 322,0.,
etcetcetcetc
0.,
1.2326e32 0.75
1219,0.3,2.1775,0.6 1220,0.15,2.1775,0.6
228
352 485 etcetc883, 835, 836, 465,466 884, 836, 464, 335,465
_G7, _G7, generate generate
321, 337,
337, 338,
485, 486,
Define
wall
321,1220,1 284,883,1
SECTIONS
node
element
and
sets
13, 92 99,
108
477,478,565,566,567,
574,575,576,577,578
output
etc
59,
64,
69,
74,
79,188,193,198,203,2 213,218,223,228,233,
263,268,273,278,283,
08 238,
304
243, 331,
407,
248, 332,
408,
253, 333,
409,
258, 354,
414,
305,306,307,308,329, 355,356,357,358,379,
381,382,383,404,405, 419,424,429,434,439,
330, 380
406, 444
229
..
*Nset,
raset=
G13
5,6,7,8,27,28,29,30,31,40, 41,42,43,71,72,73
Define internal node and element sets for boundary conditions, output etc
435,436,437,438,439,440,441,442,465,466, 467,468,473,474,475,479 480,481,533,534,535,536,537,538,539,540, 541,542,543,544,545,546 547,548,765,766,767,768,769,770,771,772, 773,774,775,776,777,778 779,780,781,782,783,784,785,786,787,788, 789,790,791,792,793,794 795,796,797,798,799,800,801,802,803,804, 805,806,807,808,809,810 811,812,813,814,815,816,817,818,819,820, 873,874,875,876,877,878
879,880,881,882,883,884 *Elset, elset=_G13 33,34,35,36,37,38,59,60,61,62, 63,84,89,94,99,104
generate generate
generate
generate
230
IA
*Nset,
nsetw
Define
321,322,330,331,334, 389,390,391,392,429,
431,432,433,434,435,
335, 430
436,
337,
437, 453,
338,339,340,
438,439,440, 454,455,456,
441,442,443,444,445,
447,448,449,450,451, 461,462,463,464,479,
446
452, 480
boundary
413,883,5
** ** ** MATERIALS Define sand constitutive law
name=sand
Prager
0. Prager
Elastic
Hardening
0.002,0.3164,0.
name=steel Define law steel
*Density
7500., *Elastic
constitutive
2. le+11,0.3
** PROPERTIES ** INTERACTION ** Interaction, *Surface name=_wal 1. interaction, *Surface name=_wal 1. Interaction, *Surface name=fric Define friction properties llProperty l2Property tional
1.
*Friction 0.445, *Surface
Interaction,
name=smoo th
1.
231
** ** BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ** Displacement ** BC: fixed Type: *Boundary _G14,2,2 ** BC: symx Type: *Boundary XSYMM _G12, ** BC: symz Type: *Boundary G13, ZSYMM *Elset, elset Typed
Typed
_G6_SNEG,
generate
Define
59,83,1 *Surface
Definition,
name=_G6
generate
contact surfaces
name=_G7 37,38,39,
53,54,55,
G8_SNEG
30,31,32,33,34,35,36,
40,41,42,43,44,45 46,47,48,49,50,51,52, 56,57,58,84,85,86
119,120,121,122,123,124,125, 129,130,131,132,133,134
135,136,137,138,139,140,141, 145,146,147,148,149,150 151,152,153,154,155,156,157,
161,162,163,164,165,166
167,168,169,170,171,172,173, 177,178,179,180,181,182
183,
Definition, SNEG _G8_SNEG, *Elset, elset=_G9_S4, *Surface name=_G8 generate
311,312,313, 387,388
S3, S3
232
8, 24,
194,
9,10, 25,26,
195,196,
197,198,199,200,201,202 203,204,205,206,207,208,209, 213,214,215,216,217,218 219,220,221,222,223,224,225, 229,230,231,232,233,234 235,236,237,238,239,240,241, 245,246,247,248,249,250 251,252,253,254,255,256,257, 261,262,263,264,265,266 267,268,269,270,271,272,273, 277,278,279,280,281,282 283,
*Surface Definition, SPOS G10_SPOS, _ * name_G10
436,
512, 588,
437,438,
513,534, 609,610,
684,
760, 836,
685,686,
761,762, 837,838,
859,860,861,862,863
*Elset, generate elset_G11_S6, 284,404,5 Definition, *Surface name=_Gll G11 S3, S3 6, S6 Gil _S G45_S2, *_Elset, generate elset
name=_G45
Define contact
base interaction=smooth
opert y
Define voids
*initial
solid1. *initial solid1.
conditions,
type=ratio
ge ostat
ratio
stress
and
in
ic
stored
solid
233
Start linear
non
LOADS
stress
Request
output
*Restart, *Output,
write, field,
*Element
Output
*Output,
*Energy ALLAE, ALLVD,
history,
Output ALLCD, ALLWK,
op=NEW, frequency=99999
ALLKE, ALLPD, ALLSE,
**
STEP: loading
inc=1000, unsymm=YES
analysis
step Static step
** *Step, *Static **
**
0.00125,1.,
BOUNDARY
le05,1.
Apply
CONDITIONS gravity
load
**
** BC: gravity Type: 1,0 Velocity
to op=new
9.8,0,
ensiled
material
*dload,
_G46, ** ** LOADS
grav,
**
** Load: *Dsload, pressure op=NEW
balancing
initial stress
234
',
** Interaction: *Change Friction, *Friction 0.445, ** Interaction: *Change Friction, *Friction 0.445, ** **
walll interaction=_walllProperty
wa112 interaction=_wall2Property
OUTPUT REQUESTS
Request
*Element
Output
PEMAG
*Output, *Energy
ALLAE, ALLVD,
history, Output
ALLCD, ALLWK,
op=NEW, frequency=99999
ALLKE, ALLPD, ALLSE,
freq=999999 *E1 Print, freq=999999 *Node Print, freq=999999 file, *contact *el file, elset=solidl. _g7, PE
*End Step
freq=999999
End analysis
235
Appendix D 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.
S, Miaea (fraction SNG, 754) (Ave. Crit.: +6.616e+07 J +6.065e+07 +5.514e+07 +4.962e+07 +4.411e+07 +3.860e+07 +3.308e+07 +2.757e+07 +2.205e+07 +1.654e+07 +1.103e+07 +5.514 e+06 +3.121e+02
1.0)
z
3'
ODB:
eand.
odb
7 11: 26; 41
GMT Daylight
Time
2002
00
U,
U2 +5.569e07 3.192e03 6.385e03 9.579e03 1.277, 02 1.596e02 1.916e02 2.235e02 2.554e02 2.874e02 3.193, 02 3.512e02 3.832e02
11
2
3'
ABAQUS/Standard
Apr
Time 2002
Step: Step2, loading 17: Step Time increment i.. Primary Var: U, U2 Deformed Var: U Deformation Scale F
tor:
+1.000e+00
236
PEEQ (Ave. Crit.: I2.710e_02 2.484e02 1.806e02 1.581e02 1.355e02 1.129e02 9.032e03 6.774e03 4.516e03 2.258. 03 0.000e+00 0
75%)
2.258e02 2.032e02
2
3" `1
ODB:
san d. odb
07
11: 26: 41
GMT Daylight
Time
2002
237
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. 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. It was also shown that the parameters of the constitutive law could be changed yet
still provide results consistentwith Janssentheory. 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.
The original geometry was used to perform runs with material parameters that had been calculated using higher and lower values of logarithmic bulk modulus. The
values used are presented in table E. I below (the values in italics are the original values for reference). A. eo yioi ai (kg/m3)
0.0005 0.65
0.0020 0.0044 0.66 0.68
1606
1595 1576
0.0080 0.71
1550
Results for the four models compared to the experimental results are shown in figure E. 1 at a depth of 1.25m below the surface of the fill. This depth, being the mid
height of the bin, is chosen to illustrate the form of the distribution and show the
238
25
20
_
15
10
0
0
0 0.15 0.3 Distance from corner 0.45 of bin (m) 0.6 0.75
Figure E. 1  Wall normal pressures across the wall from FEA and experiment at 1.25m depth Results are available for other levels and a least squares mathematical performed interpolated on the data. In order to do this the finite fit has been
so that corresponding
for wall pressure can be obtained at the values Firstly, this was performed by using a (Schumaker,
technique
Linear interpolation
assumes the data to be connected via straight lines and The cubic spline interpolation fits a
function between each point to produce a smooth curve. provide values at the appropriate points.
Both of these best fit techniques fail to point to a conclusive value of A for sand. 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, in the corner). 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=0.0005 provides
the mathematically best fit. However, it can be seen from figure E. 1 that none of the for the pressure in the middle of the wall. 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.
239
Appendix F Investigation
Figure F. 1 shows a wall pressure cell taken from the experimental rig used by Jarrett (1995).
(1995)
This cell was manufactured by Askegaard along with 3 others for use in the aforementioned work. Sections of the wall of the bin were removed and the
workings of the cell built into them. These sections were then replaced in the bin wall. This technique aims to reduce any effect on the continuity of the wall caused
by the installation of pressure cells. Each cell is constructed from a 10mm thick piece of the bin wall. A 0.5mm thick
piece of mild steel forms the front face of the cell and this is placed into a 0.7mm by 100mm diameter recess machined into the wall section. The cell face is welded to the centre of the recess and sealed at the edge by a rubber membrane. The resulting 0.2mm gap between face and wall section is charged with a silicone oil. This
transmits the pressure on the face to a semiconductor pressure gauge. The front face of the cell remains very stiff with the deflection being measured at less than 1 micron per 100kPa.
240
These cells are filled with silicone oil via an aperture in the back of the cell. 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 nonlinear behaviour of the cell making it useless. The cells were charged with oil and then calibrated using air pressure. The pressure
transducer is wired in a full bridge configuration and the excitation voltage is set to
10V. Figure F.2 shows the calibration of one of these types of cell.
5
p1 3y = 0.3799x + 0.9682
Figure F. 2  Calibration
The best fit straight line to the readings gives a value of 37.99 V per volt excitation figure kPa. This agrees with the original specification supplied with the cells. per These cells are not suitable for use in a thinwalled silo model. Installation in the thin lead to erroneous results due to the drastically increased local stiffness in would wall the region of the cell. In order to use cells of this type in a thinwall a new design is required. 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). With this in mind it was
be that the workings of a cell proposed machined into the back of the wall. This
241
would preserve the smooth continuity of the wall inside the bin. A circular recess
1.1mm deep and 50mm diameter was machined into a plate of overall thickness 1.6mm. A step of 0.3mm was left around the circumference. This allows another
piece of plate to be installed in the back leaving a gap for the oil. 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. Figure F. 3 shows the back of the cell.
.4
Figure F. 3  Rear view of cell installed in thinwall
The cell is charged with oil in a similar fashion to the previous cells. Again, the is bridge full in is the transducer calibration and configuration a wired pressure performed using air pressure. Unfortunately this cell was unable to provide any useful results. 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 nonlinear. was also a the system and therefore once the load was removed the readings could not be
inducedto return to zero. More researchin this area could lead to a viable method for directly determiningthe is but in thinwalled this silo outside the scope of this project. wall pressures a Therefore,the use of the free field cells was deemedmost suitable.
242