Analytical determination of internal forces
in a cylindrical tank wall
from soil, liquid, and vehicle loads
S. Godbout1, A. Marquis2, M. Fafard3 and A. Picard3
1
Institut de recherche et de développement en agroenvironnement inc., Sainte Foy, Québec, Canada G1P 3W8; 2Département des
sols et de génie agroalimentaire, FSAA, Université Laval, Sainte Foy, Québec, Canada G1K 7P4; and 3Faculté des sciences et de
génie, Université Laval, Sainte Foy, Québec, Canada G1K 7P4.
Godbout, S., Marquis, A., Fafard, M. and Picard, A. 2003. Analytical
determination of internal forces in a cylindrical tank wall from
soil, liquid, and vehicle loads. Canadian Biosystems Engineering/Le
génie des biosystèmes au Canada 45: 5.7-5.14. Cylindrical cast-in-
place concrete tanks are commonly used for storing liquid manure
during long periods. A serviceable tank should be watertight to prevent
corrosion of the reinforcing rods and groundwater pollution. Therefore,
these tanks should be designed to withstand different design loads.
Codes and design recommendations require that the effects of liquid,
soil, ice, and vehicle loads, and temperature should all be considered
in the design. The main objective of this paper is to extend the design
information available to date. This study proposes a calculation
method for determining design circumferential tension and bending
moments in the wall per unit of wall height, due to design loads. The
method is based on analytical solutions of the differential equation that
governs the behaviour of the wall of a cylindrical manure tank
subjected to soil and liquid pressures and loads from vehicles near the
wall, as specified in the National Farm Building Code. Both hinged
and fixed bases are considered. Keywords: cylindrical manure tanks,
internal forces, analysis.
Le lisier est généralement entreposé dans les réservoirs en béton
circulaire durant de lonque période. Afin que ces structures remplissent
adéquatement leur rôle, elles doivent être étanches afin d’éviter toute
contamination des sols et de la nappe phréatique. Elles doivent donc
être conçues et construites pour résister aux différentes charges
auxquelles elles seront soumises. Les différents codes et
recommandations de conception exigent que le concepteur prenne en
compte les effets de la pression hydrostatique, des glaces, des sols, des
véhicules et de la température. L’objectif principal de cet article est de
compléter les outils déjà disponibles pour déterminer les différents
efforts de conception. La présente étude propose donc une méthode de
calcul afin de déterminer la tension et le moment de flexion dans la
paroi par unité de hauteur de mur pour les charges de conception. Cette
approche est basée sur une solution analytique des équations
différentielles gouvernant le comportement des parois des réservoirs
cylindrique soumises à des charges de sol, de liquide et de circulation
de machinerie telles que spécifiées dans le code Canadien des
bâtiments agricoles. Les conditions de base rotulée et encastrée sont
considérées. Mots clefs: réservoirs circulaires, forces internes,
analyses.
INTRODUCTION and LITERATURE REVIEW
Liquid swine manure is often stored in large cylindrical concrete
tanks, which are partially below ground. The dimensions of
Volume 45 2003 CANADIAN BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
these tanks vary from 18 to 33 m in diameter with heights from
2.4 to 4.9 m and a uniform wall thickness varying from 150 to
200 mm. Generally, the designer assumes the base of the tank
wall to be fixed or hinged. The liquid level varies during winter
as a function of time. Generally, manure is added from the top
by successive batches. The number of days between each batch
varies from one to ten. The tank capacity is designed, in most
cases, for 200 to 300 days of storage.
Liquid manure tanks must be designed using adequate loads
(Godbout 1996; Ramanjaneyulu et al. 1993). A serviceable tank
should be watertight to prevent groundwater pollution and
corrosion of the reinforcing rods. In Canada, the National
Building Code (NBC) (NRRC 1995b) and the National Farm
Building Code (NFBC) (NRCC 1995a) have publications to
assist in the design and the construction of farm manure storage
structures. Codes and design recommendations require that the
effects of liquid, soil, ice, and vehicle loads and temperature
should be considered in the design. Generally, codes do not give
sufficient guidance on the analysis methods or on the stress
magnitudes to be expected. Some provinces, such as Ontario,
have their own building code. However, all provincial building
codes are virtually identical to the NBC in regard to structural
design (Jofriet et al. 1996).
Presently, to transform the liquid and soil loads into forces
acting in the circular wall, the designer has available the
coefficients given by the Portland Cement Association (PCA
1993). The coefficients are provided for a fully filled and
backfilled tank only, but they do not allow for the evaluation of
force for the design of a partially backfilled tank, for example.
Moreover, in accordance with the NFBC, the designer must
consider a vehicle load of 5 kPa uniformly applied below
ground level. In practice, the available design tools (tables)
allow the evaluation of the forces due to this load only for a
fully backfilled tank.
The main objective of this paper is to extend the design
information available to date. This paper presents a method to
evaluate internal forces due to various external loads that a
cylindrical tank wall must be able to withstand. These loads are
from the soil backfill, liquid, and vehicle traffic near the tank
wall. Hinged and fixed bases both are considered.
5.7
 (
w z = e β z C1 cos βz + C2 sin βz + )
(
e − β z C3 cos βz + C4 sin βz ) (3)

where:

β=4
(
3 1 − v t2 ) (4)
2 2
R t
and C1, C2, C3, and C4 are the constants of integration which
must be determined in each particular case from the conditions
at the top and bottom of the tank wall.
If the values of the displacement at the base wall, w0, the
rotation of the base wall, 20, the vertical bending moment at the
base wall, M0, and the shear at the base wall, V0, (see Fig. 2) are
all known, a more convenient generalized form, Eq. 5, can be
obtained (Hetényi 1974).
θ0 M
w z = w0 Y1 + Y2 − 2 0 Y3 +
β β D
V0
3
β D
Y4 ( βz ) −
C
β2D
[
Y3 β ( z − z F ) + ]
Fig. 1. Cylindrical shell under an axisymetric load q. z
P
β 3D
[(
Y4 β z − z G + )] 1
β 3D z ∫ qY [β ( z − u)]du
4 (5)
ANALYSIS E

Timoshenko and Woinowski-Krieger (1959) indicated that all where (see Fig. 2):
problems of symmetrical deformation of cylindrical shells can C = a couple acting at z=zF,
be reduced to the integration of Eq. 1, which expresses the P = a concentrated load acting at z=zG,
uniformly distributed load as a function of radial displacement zE, zD = limits between which the distributed load, q, acts,
at any height. u = variable of integration, and
Y1 ( βz ) = cosh( βz ) cos( βz ) (6)
d 2  d 2 wz  E t t
 D  + wz = q (1)
dz 2  dz 2  R 2 [ ]
Y2 ( βz ) = 0.5 cosh( βz ) sin( βz ) + sinh( βz ) cos( βz ) (7)

Y3 ( βz) = 0.5[sinh( βz) sin( βz ) ]

where:
(8)
R = radius,
t = wall thickness,
vt = Poisson’s ratio for wall material, Y4 ( βz ) = 0.25[cosh( βz ) sin( βz ) − sinh( βz) cos( βz ) ] (9)
Et = elastic modulus of wall material,
wz = radial displacement at z,
q = distributed applied load (Fig. 1),
z = vertical coordinate, and
D = flexural rigidity.
The simplest application of Eq. 1 is obtained when the thickness
of the shell is constant. Under such conditions, Eq. 1 becomes:

d 4 wz Et t
D 4
+ wz = q (2)
dz R2
Equation 2 is similar to the one obtained for a beam of unit
width (Fig. 2), with flexural rigidity D, supported on a
continuous elastic foundation, and submitted to the action of a
load q and has a foundation modulus of Ett/R2 (Hetényi 1974).
For the particular case of a cylindrical tank, D=Ett3/[12(1-vt2)].
The general solution of Eq. 2 is given by Timoshenko and Fig. 2. Beam on elastic foundation submitted to different
Woinowski-Krieger (1959) and Hetényi (1974) as: loads (Hetényi 1974).

5.8 LE GÉNIE DES BIOSYSTÈMES AU CANADA GODBOUT et al.

The couple and the concentrated load must be acting at points
to the left of z, the point under consideration, otherwise the
associated term in Eq. 5 drops out. Similarly, if z<zE, the
integral goes to zero and if z>zD, the upper limit of the integral
goes to zD.
The different internal forces can be determined knowing that
the bending moment, M, shear force, V, and the circumferential
tension in the wall, N, per unit of wall height are given by:
Et t
N= wz (10)
R
dw z
θ ≈ tan θ = (11)
dz
Fig. 3. Liquid and soil pressure.
d 2 wz
M = −D (12)
dz 2 (NRCC 1995a). The inward horizontal soil pressures are based
on the equivalent fluid specific weight. It is easy to evaluate the
d 3 wz internal force resulting from the application of these two loads
V = −D (13) when the tank is full and completely below ground level. PCA
dz 3
(1993) gives coefficients to evaluate the bending moment and
We can obtain the expressions for slope, 2, moment, and tensile loads for different boundary conditions. In the case of
shearing force by taking successive derivatives of Eq. 5 with partially filled tanks, the designer cannot use these coefficients.
respect to z and noting that: Equations 19-31 (Godbout 1996) give the vertical bending
Y1' ( βz ) = −4βY4 ( βz ) moment, Mz, at any point z along the wall height, the radial
(14)
displacement, wz, at at any point z along the wall height, and the
shear, V0, at the base for two sets of boundary conditions
Y2' ( βz ) = βY1 ( βz ) (15) frequently assumed in practice. The circumferential tension in
the wall can be calculated from wz and Eq. 10.
Y3' ( βz ) = βY2 ( βz ) (16)
Hinged base Assuming w0 and M0 to be zero (Eq. 5), the
solution for a hinged base is given by Eqs. 19-27.
Y4' ( βz ) = βY3 ( βz ) (17)
θ 0 Y2 V0 Y4 q0
In Eqs. 14-17, $ includes the flexural rigidity of the beam as wz =
β
+ 3 +
β D 4β 4 D
CW1 [ ] (19)
well as the elasticity of the supporting medium and is an
important factor influencing the shape of the elastic line. For
V0 Y2 q0
these reasons, the factor $ (length-1) is frequently referred to as
the “characteristic length” and is used to characterize the tank.
M z = 4θ 0 βY4 D −
β
−
β4
[CM ] 1 (20)
In fact, cylindrical tanks can be divided into two groups,
if z#d
shallow and deep tanks (Ghali 1979; Hetényi 1974). A tank is
considered shallow when: z Y
CW1 = 1 − − Y1 + 2 (21)
βL ≥ π (18) d βd
where L = tank wall height. βY4
CM 1 = β 2 Y3 − (22)
In the case of deep tanks, it is possible to use a simplified d
form of Eq. 5, and it is then relatively easy to express the if z>d
circumferential tension and bending moment by simple
expressions (Picard 1985). However, in practice, manure tanks Y2 Y2 zd
have a factor $L less than B (generally about 2.4) and most CW1 = −Y1 + − (23)
βd βd
modern tanks must therefore be considered as shallow tanks.
Therefore, to determine the internal forces, the designer must
use the general solution. βY4 βY4 zd
CM 1 = β 2 Y3 − + (24)
Based on the general solution, for each type of loading, Eqs. d d
19-43 give the bending moments and the radial displacements where:
for both shallow and deep tanks for two sets of boundary
conditions frequently encountered in practice. d = depth of fluid in tank (liquid pressure) or
d = Hs = height of soil level above bottom of wall (soil
pressure),
LIQUID and SOIL PRESSURES
q0 = fluid pressure at wall base (z=0) (see Fig.3) (see Eqs.
The liquid pressure from the manure may be calculated 32 and 33),
considering it to have an equivalent fluid density of 10 kN/m3

Volume 45 2003 CANADIAN BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 5.9

Table 1. Tensions and bending moments for a fully filled where:
((e = 10 kN/m3) tank with a hinged base. Com-
parison of values obtained using tables and the 4βY4 L M 0 q  Y3 L Y3 Ld 
V0 = − − 20 βY2 L − d + d  (30)
developed equations. Y1 L β Y1 L  

q0
R = 15 m d = 3.7 m M0 = ×
β [Y1L Y1 L + 4Y2 L Y4 L ]
3

L = 3.7 m vt = 0.17
  Y4 L Y4 Ld 
t = 0.2 m Et = 30 MPa − Y2 L (θ1 ) + Y1L  βY3 L − +  (31)
  d d 

Tension Bending moment In Eqs. 19-31, q0 is given by Eqs. 32 and 33 for liquid
Height (kN/m) (kNm/m) pressure and soil pressure, respectively.
(m)
Tables* Equations Tables* Equations q0 = γ e d (32)

3.7 (top) 93.7 86.8 0.0 0.0 where: (e = fluid specific weight.
3.33 131.7 129.3 0.4 0.4
2.96 171.9 170.6 1.5 1.4 q0 = K sγ s H s (33)
2.59 207.4 208.0 3.2 3.0
where:
2.22 234.0 237.3 5.0 5.0
1.85 252.1 253.3 7.0 7.1 Ks(s = equivalent fluid specific weight.
1.48 248.1 250.6 9.1 8.9 For a drained clean sand and gravel soil, the equivalent fluid
1.11 221.9 224.4 10.1 10.0 specific weight is 4.7 kN/m3, for a sand and gravel soil with fine
0.74 170.2 171.8 9.6 9,6 and restricted permeability it is 5.7 kN/m3, for silt and clay it is
0.37 93.0 94.3 6.8 6.7 7.0 kN/m3, and for soft silt and clay poorly drained it is 16.0
0 (bottom) -- -- 0.0 0.0 kN/m3 (NRCC 1995a).
*PCA (1993) It is interesting to compare the PCA (1993) values of tension
and bending moment to the equation results for a tank of 30 m
diameter and 3.7 m height, with a wall thickness of 0.2 m. The
Yi = Yi($z), internal circumferential tensions and the vertical bending
YiL = Yi($L), moments were calculated for a fully filled tank with a hinged
Yizd = Yi[$(z-d)], and base. The results (Table 1) show values, which from a practical
i = 1, 2, 3, 4 (Eqs. 6-9). point of view, are the same. The small differences can be related
to the Et or vt values and to round off during the calculation.
V0 Y1L q0
θ0 =
4 Dβ Y3 L 2 +
4 Dβ 4 Y3 L
[θ ]
1 (25) Table 2 shows some results for a tank that is partially below the
ground surface.
q0 VEHICLE LOAD
V0 = ×
β ( Y2 L Y3 L − Y1 L Y4 L )
2
The NBC (NRCC 1995b) and NFBC (NRCC 1995a) indicate
that where vehicle loads, such as by manure tankers or trucks,
  Y4 L Y4 Ld 
Y4 L (θ1 ) − Y3 L  βY3 L − +  (26) are applied within 1.5 m of a manure tank wall, the wall must be
  d d  designed for a horizontal load of 5 kPa applied uniformly below
the ground surface level (Fig. 4). In this case, the displacement
Y3 L Y3 Ld
θ1 = βY2 L − + (27) and bending moment are given by Eqs. 34-43.
d d
If z<Hs
Appendix A shows the development of Eqs. 19-27 which are
M 0 Y3 θ 0 Y2 V0 Y4 qm
used to calculate loads, etc. for a linear load (liquid pressure) for
a hinged base.
wz = −
β D 2 +
β
+ 3 +
β D 4β 4 D
1 − Y1 ( ) (34)

Fixed base Assuming w0 and 20 to be zero (Eq. 5), the solution

V0 Y2 qm
for a fixed base is given by Eqs. 28-31. M z = M 0 Y1 + 4βY4θ 0 D − − Y3 (35)
β β2
M 0 Y3 V0 Y4 q0
wz = − 2
β D
+
β D 3 +
4β 4 D
[CW ] 1 (28) If z$Hs
M 0 Y3 θ 0 Y2 V0 Y4 qm
V0 Y2 q0 wz = − +
β
+ 3 + Y − Y1 ( ) (36)
[CM 1 ] β D 4β 4 D 1zd
2
M z = M 0 Y1 − − (29) β D
β β 4

5.10 LE GÉNIE DES BIOSYSTÈMES AU CANADA GODBOUT et al.

Table 2. Circumferential compressions (N) and bending moments (M) for different where:
ground levels for hinged base (Ks(s = 5.7 kN/m3). YiLd = Yi[$(L-Hs)] (Eqs. 6-9)
and N is obtained by substituting
R = 15 m Hs = 1, 2, 3 m wz into Eq. 10. Tables 2 and 3 give
compression forces and bending
L = 3.7 m vt = 0.17 moments for two typical cases. For
the case shown in Table 3, it is not
t = 0.2 m Et = 30 MPa possible to compare with the force
values in PCA (1993) because in
this example the load is only
Hs = 1 m Hs = 2 m Hs = 3 m
Height distributed part way up the wall,
(m) N M N M N M
(kN/m) (kNm/m) (kN/m) (kNm/m) (kN/m) (kNm/m) CONCLUSION

3.7 (top) -1.8 0.0 -4.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 For external loads on manure
3.33 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 25.0 0.1 storage tanks, the coefficients
2.96 1.8 0.0 10.4 0.0 45.2 0.4 available to the designer to date do
2.59 3.5 0.0 18.0 0.1 64.0 1.3 not allow determination of forces
2.22 5.5 0.1 24.8 0.4 79.3 1.9 for a liquid or soil level different
1.85 7.2 0.2 31.0 1.0 90.0 3.0 than the tank height. The equations
1.48 8.5 0.3 34.4 1.5 92.9 3.8 presented allow the forces to be
1.11 9.0 0.6 33.5 2.1 85.0 4.4 determined for any load positions
0.74 8.1 0.8 27.9 2.3 67.1 4.3 for short tanks.
0.37 4.2 0.7 18.0 1.8 32.0 3.0 Equations have been developed
0.0 (bottom) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 for the case of vehicle loading
when the backfill height is not the
V0 Y2 qm same as the tank height.
M z = M 0 Y1 + 4βY4θ 0 D −
β
−
β2
(Y3 − Y3zd ) (37) At time of publication, software is being developed to
facilitate the application of the equations in this paper. This
where: software will be made available on the web site www.irda.qc.ca.
qm = uniformly applied load below ground surface (5 kPa),
Y1zd = Y1[$(z-Hs)] (Eq. 6),
Y3zd = Y3[$(z-Hs)] (Eq. 8), and
M0, 20, V0 depend upon if the base wall is hinged or fixed
(Eqs. 38-43).
Hinged wall If the base wall is hinged:
M0 = 0 (38)

V0 Y1L qm
θ0 = 2
4β Y3 L D
+ 3
4β Y3 L D
(Y2 L − Y2 Ld ) (39)

qm
V0 = ×
β ( Y2 L Y3 L − Y1L Y4 L )

[Y4 L (Y2 L − Y2 Ld ) − Y3 L (Y3L − Y3Ld )] (40)

Fig. 4. Uniform pressure on the tank wall.

Fixed wall If the base wall is fixed: ACKNOWLEDGMENT

θ0 = 0 (41) The authors gratefully acknowledge the joint financial support

of Agro-Alimentaire Canada and the Ministère de l’Agriculture,
V0 Y1 L qm des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ).
M0 = − −
4βY4 L 4β 2 Y4 L
( Y2 L − Y2 Ld ) (42)
REFERENCES
qm Ghali, A. 1979. Circular Storage Tanks and Silos. New York,
V0 = − ×
β ( 4Y2 L Y4 L + Y1L Y1L ) NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Godbout, S. 1996. Analyse par éléments finis des réservoirs
[Y1L (Y2 L − Y2 Ld ) + 4Y4 L (Y3L − Y3 Ld ) ] (43) circulaires à lisier en béton armé: Définition des
chargements et étude du comportement. Ph.D. thesis. Dépar-
tement de génie civil, Université Laval, Sainte Foy, QC.

Volume 45 2003 CANADIAN BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 5.11

Table 3. Circumferential compressions (N) and bending K s (s equivalent fluid specific weight
moments (M) for a uniform load (qm) of 5 kPa L tank wall height
for a hinged base. Mc circumferential bending moment
Mz vertical bending moment at z
N circumferential tensile load in wall
R = 15 m Hs = 2 m P a concentrated load acting at z=zG
q distributed applied load
L = 3.7 m vt = 0.17 qm uniformly applied soil load below ground surface
q0 fluid pressure at wall base
t = 0.2 m Et = 30 MPa R radius of tank
t tank wall thickness,
Height Compression force Bending moment
u variable of integration
(m) (kN/m) (kNm/m) vt Poisson’s ratio for wall material
Vz shear in wall at z
3.7 (top) -1.2 0.0 wz radial displacement at z
3.33 7.5 0.0 yi Yi($L) i=1, 2, 3, 4 (Eqs. 6-9)
2.96 16.5 0.1 Yi Yi($z) i=1, 2, 3, 4 (Eqs. 6-9)
2.59 25.0 0.3 YiL Yi($L) i=1, 2, 3, 4 (Eqs. 6-9)
2.22 32.6 0.8 Yizd Yi[$(z-d)] i=1, 2, 3, 4 (Eqs. 6-9)
1.85 38.0 1.4 Yi($z) a function of $z i=1, 2, 3, 4 (Eqs. 6-9)
1.48 40.0 1.9 z vertical coordinate
1.11 37.0 2.0 zE, zD limits between which the distributed load, q, acts

( )
0.74 28.9 1.8
0.37 15.0 1.1 $ 4 3 1 − v t2 / R 2 t 2
0.0 (bottom) 0.0 0.0
2z wall rotation at z
21 expression given by Eq. 27
Hetényi, M. 1974. Beams on Elastic Foundation. Ann Arbor, (e fluid specific weight
MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Jofriet, J.C., Y.M Zhang, J.W. Johnson and N. Bird. 1996. APPENDIX A
Structural design of liquid manure tanks. Canadian Development of equations for a linear load
Agricultural Engineering 38(1): 45-52. (liquid pressure) for a hinged base
NRCC. 1995a. National Farm Building Code. Canadian Load equation
Commission on Building and Fire Codes, NRCC 38732.
Ottawa, ON: National Research Council of Canada.
NRCC. 1995b. National Building Code of Canada. Canadian
Commission on Building and Fire Codes, NRCC 38726.
Ottawa, ON: National Research Council of Canada.
PCA. 1993. Circular Concrete Tanks without Prestressing.
Publication IS072.01D. Skokie, IL: Portland Cement
Association.
Picard, A. 1985. Béton Précontraint, Tome II. Chicoutimi, QC:
Gaétan Morin Editeur.
Ramanjaneyulu, K., S. Gopalakrishmanand and R. Appa. 1993.
Collapse loads of reinforced concrete cylindrical water tanks z
q d−u
D ∫ [β (
using limit analysis approach. Computers and Structures Load = Y (A1)
48(2): 205-217. β 3 4 z − u) ] u du
0
Timoshenko, S. and S. Woinowski-Krieger. 1959. Theory of
Plates and Shells, 2nd edition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Integration of the load equation
Book Company. To carry out the integration of Eq. A1, we use the
fundamental integral form:
NOMENCLATURE
C a couple acting at z=zF, ∫ kdv = kv − ∫ vdk
C1, C2, C3, C4 constants of integration In the present case, we assume:
CM1 expression given by Eq. 22 or 24
Y1 β ( z − u )
CW1 expression given by Eq. 21 or 23 d−u [ ]
d depth of fluid in tank k= v=
d 4β
D flexural rigidity D=Ett3/[12(1-vt2)]
Et elastic modulus of wall material then
Hs height of soil level above bottom of wall

5.12 LE GÉNIE DES BIOSYSTÈMES AU CANADA GODBOUT et al.

 1
dk = − du
d
and using Eq. 14:
dv = Y4 β ( z − u ) du
[ ]

Equation A1 may then be written:

 Y z z Y1 β ( z − u) 
  d − u  1[ β ( z − u )]
q [ ] −1 
Load = 3  
β D  u  4β
 − ∫ 4β

 d
du 

 0 0 
The integration can be carried out using Eq. 15 to give:
 Y z
Y2 β ( z − u ) z 
  d − u  1[ β ( z − u )]
q −1
( − 1)
[ ] 
Load = 3    −  (A2)
β D  d  4β d 4β 2
 0 0 

Evaluating at the limits, noting that Y1(0)=1 and Y2(0)=0 and rearranging, results in:

q  1 z [ ] Y2[ βz ] 
Y1 β z
Load =  − − + (A3)
β 3 D  4β 4 βd 4β 4β 2 d 

Equation A3 only applies for z#d.

When z>d, the upper limit of integration in Eq. A2 is d. Applying this limit to Eq. A2 results in:

 Y1[ βz ] Y2[ β z ] Y2[ β ( z − d )] 

q
Load = 3  − + − 
β D  4β 4β 2 d 4β 2 d 

For hinged base

If z#d (Eqs. 19-22):
θ 0 Y2[ β z ] V0 Y4 β z
[ ] q0  z Y2 βz 
[ ]
wz = + + 1 − − Y +
β β 3D 3
4β D  d 1[ β z ] β d  (A4)

V0 Y2 βz
[ ] q 0  2 βY4[ β z ] 
M z = 4θ 0 βY4 βz D − − β Y −  (A5)
[ ] β β 4  3[ β z ] d 

If z>d (Eqs. 19, 20, 23, 24)

θ 0 Y2[ βz ] V0 Y4 βz
[ ] q0  [ ] Y2[ β ( z − d )] 
Y2 βz
wz = + + − Y + −
β β 3D 4β 3 D  1[ β z ] βd βd 

(A6)

V0 Y2 β z
[ ] q 0  2 βY4[ βz ] βY4[ β ( z − d )] 
M z = 4θ 0 βY4 βz D − − β Y − +  (A7)
[ ] β β 4  3[ β z ] d d 


To use Eqs. A4-A7, we must evaluate 20 and V0. (Note that in the following we use the shorthand notation yi=Yi[$L].)
If we apply Eq. A7 at z=L where Mz=0, we have:

V0 y 2 q0  2 βy 4 βY4[ β ( L − d )] 
0 = 4 Dθ 0 βy 4 − −  β y3 − + 
β β 4  d d 


Volume 45 2003 CANADIAN BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 5.13

and rearranging, results in:

4 Dθ 0 β 2 y 4 q0  y Y4 β ( L − d ) 
[ ]
V0 = −  βy 3 − 4 + (A8)
y2 y2 β 2 

d d 

Because Vz=dM/dz and VL=0, if we take the derivative of Eq. A7 and evaluate at z=L, we have:

q0  y 3 Y3[ β ( L − d )] 
2 
0 = 4 Dθ 0 β y 3 − V0 y1 − 2 βy 2 − +  (A9)
β  d d 

Rearranging Eq. A9 results in:

V0 y1 q0  y Y3 β ( L − d ) 
[ ]
θ0 = +  βy 2 − 3 + (A10)
4 Dβ 2 y 3 4
4 Dβ y 3  d d 

Equation A10 is identical to the combined Eqs. 25 and 27.
Substitution of Eq. A10 into Eq. A7 results in:

V 0 y1 y 4 q0 y4  y Y3 β ( L − d ) 
[ ]  q0  y Y4 β ( L − d ) 
[ ]
V0 = + 2  βy 2 − 3 + −  βy 3 − 4 +
y2 y3 β y2 y3  d d  y2 β 2  d d 
   
which can be rearranged to:

  Y ( )   Y ( ) 
V0 =
q0  y  βy − y 3 + 3[ β L − d ]  − y  βy − y 4 + 4[ β L − d ]   (A11)
(
β 2 y 2 y 3 − y1 y 4 )  4  2 d

d 

3

3
d d 

Equation All is identical to the combined Eqs. 26 and 27.

5.14 LE GÉNIE DES BIOSYSTÈMES AU CANADA GODBOUT et al.