Shell Structures: Theory and Applications Volume 4 – Pietraszkiewicz & Witkowski (eds)

© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-05045-7

Numerical investigations on buckling of cylindrical metal silos with

corrugated sheets and open-sectional column profiles

P. Hajko, J. Tejchman & M. Wójcik

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Gdansk University of Technology, Gdańsk, Poland

ABSTRACT: The paper deals with buckling of cylindrical metal silos with corrugated sheets and columns.
Attention was paid to local buckling of cold-formed open-sectional thin-walled columns in metal cylindrical
silos with corrugated sheets. The effect of the column profile dimension, silo diameter, corrugated wall thick-
ness, column number/distance, corrugation height was investigated in detail. Three-dimensional linear buckling
analyses were performed for silos using the finite element method. Numerical results were compared with the
analytical formulas of Eurocode 3.

1 INTRODUCTION number, profile shape and thickness and structural

Silos are engineering structures widely used in indus-
tries and farms to store, feed and process bulk solids
essential to agricultural, mining, mineral processing,
chemical, shipping and other industries (Safarian &
Harris 1985). Frequent use the engineering practice is
denoted in the case of silos composed of thin-walled
corrugated sheets strengthened by cold-formed open-
sectional thin-walled columns distributed uniformly
around the silo circumference and connected with
screws due to an economical steel consumption and
a small silo weight. In these silos, it is assumed that
horizontally corrugated wall sheets carry circumferen-
tial tensile forces caused by horizontal wall pressure
and columns carry vertical compressive forces due to
the vertical wall friction traction exerted from bulk
solids. A common mechanical failure form in all metal
silos is a stability loss caused by the compressive wall
friction force due to the interaction between the silo
fill and silo wall, particularly during eccentric filling
and discharge (Brown & Nielsen 1998, Rotter 1998)
and dynamic mass flow (Tejchman & Gudehus 1993,
Wilde et al. 2008).
The aim of the study was to determine the numerical
effect of the column profile dimension, silo diame-
ter, column number/column spacing, corrugated wall
dimensions (thickness and height) on local buckling
with the aid of three-dimensional numerical finite
element analyses. Due to our knowledge, such com-
prehensive studies regarding local buckling of silos
have not been performed yet.
diameter, silos may lose their stability in a globally
or locally. If closed column profiles are used (e.g. box
or tubular cross-sections), local stability loss does not
apparently take place. However, such profiles cannot
be used in silos due to the lack of the screw con-
nection possibility between columns and wall sheets.
In the case of single open-sectional column profiles,
three types of buckling forms may be observed accord-
ing to Eurocode 3 (EC3), EN 1993-1-3, namely local,
distortional and global buckling.
The distortional instability is characterized by
deformation of profile side walls which alternately
bend to both the inside and the outside. Local insta-
bilities occur when some wall parts of profile cross-
sections detect characteristic single bulges. Note that
these rules are not directly related to open-sectional
columns in silos as they are stiffened by corrugated
sheets. The global column buckling shape is close to
the classical Euler solution.
3 ANALITICAL CALCULATIONS BY EC3
The EC3 approach allows for investigating the global
silo buckling strength with two sets of formulas
depending on the column separation ds . The critical
value determining the stability calculation approach is
computed as:

2 SILO BUCKLING FORMS where: Dy – the flexural rigidity per unit width of
the thinnest sheet parallel to the corrugation, Cy –
Depending upon the geometry expressed by the cor- the stretching stiffness per unit width of the thinnest
rugated wall thickness, wall corrugation, column sheet parallel to the corrugation, r – the cylinder radius

227
and kdx = 7.4 (coefficient). When the column separa-
tion is smaller or equal to ds,max , the silo stability is
determined as for orthotropic shells
where: nx,Rcr – the critical buckling stress resultant, j –
the circumferential wave number and ω, A1 , A2 and A3
– the coefficients including the flexural and stretch-
ing stiffness in orthogonal directions of the equivalent
orthotropic cylinder. If the horizontal column sepa-
ration ds > ds,max , the buckling resistance should be
determined for individual columns using the second
approach:
– ignoring the supporting action of wall sheets in
resisting buckling displacements normal to the
wall or
– allowing for the stiffness of wall sheets in resist-
ing buckling displacements normal to the wall that
seems to be more realistic. The design buckling
resistance of a single vertical column in this method
is given by:
where: Nb,Rd – the critical buckling resistance, EI y –
the column flexural rigidity for the out-of-plane
wall bending and K – the flexural stiffness of sheets
between columns. The critical buckling distortional
elastic stress in a single silo column without the
support effect of silo sheets may be computed
according to EC3 as:
where: Kw – the spring stiffness of the column
flange per the unit length, E – the Young’s mod-
ulus, Is – the effective second moment of inertia of
the column and As – the column effective area. The
critical buckling local elastic stress in a single silo
column without the effect of a support of silo sheets
may be computed following EC3, EN 1993-1-5 as:
where: kσ – the buckling coefficient according to
an orthotropic plate theory, t – the plate thickness,
v – the Poisson’s ratio and b – the plate length.
4 NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS OF SILOS
USING FEM
In order to estimate the influence of silo characteristic
parameters on the buckling form, the FE model of a
silo was created in the commercial program ABAQUS.
The shell elements with full integration S4 were used
228
for the silo wall and silo columns (the influence of
the element type S4 or S4R was negligible). The shell
element size was about 7 × 150 mm2 (corrugated wall)
and 19 × 10 mm2 (column). In order to describe a sheet
half-wave, 6 elements were used. The several elements
(6 along the column height and 4 along the column
walls in the horizontal) were chosen to describe col-
umn dimensions. The finite element size and element
type were assumed based on our previous detailed cal-
culation results (Wójcik et al 2011, Iwicki et al. 2011).
The columns were tied to the silo shell at the points of
the top of corrugation waves. The columns detected
six degrees of freedom blocked at their base. The silo
roof was omitted due to its negligible effect on results
due to the occurrence of wall deformation in the lower
silo region (Wójcik et al. 2011). All silo column pro-
files were of the type ‘C’, mainly 80 mm long (acol )
and 40 mm wide (bcol ). The wing length was always
ccol = 10 mm. The column profile thickness tcol was
constant in all column profiles used in a single silo,
varying in our analyses from 2.0 mm up to 6.1 mm.
In the first step, linear buckling analyses (LBA) were
conducted. The tangential load along the wall height
exerted from the bulk solid was solely applied (without
normal wall pressure).
5 NUMERICAL RESULTS
The effect of the column profile slenderness λcol =
bcol /tcol and column number n on the buckling type
is depicted in Fig.1 (H = 10 m and diameter D =
8 m, wall corrugation 18 × 76 mm2 with thickness
t = 0.7 mm). According to FE calculations, the effect
was similar for the critical profile slenderness between
the global-distortional and distortional-local buckling
type. The critical profile slenderness effect between
distortional and local forms was almost the same for
more than 21 columns. When a lower column number
Figure 1. Influence of column profile slenderness λcol and
column number n on silo buckling form from FEM and EC3
(silo of height H = 10 m and diameter D = 8 m, wall corru-
gation 18 × 76 mm2 with thickness t = 0.7 mm): A) global
buckling form, B) distortional buckling form and C) local
buckling form (- global and distortional form boundary, - - -
distortional and local form boundary).
occurred, the slenderness λcol slightly decreased with
growing column number n from n = 10 up to n = 21.
The results by EC3, EN 1993-4-1 showed that the
critical column profile slenderness for local buckling
was 16.7. For the column number n < 18, the local
column buckling was not possible according to EC3
(EN 1993-1-3 and EN 1993-1-5) (that was not con-
firmed in FE calculations). The maximum difference
between EC3 and FEM (local buckling against distor-
tional buckling of columns) was 20% for n > 21 (λcol
by FEM was higher).
The influence of the column profile slenderness
λcol , column separation ds and silo diameter D on the
silo buckling form is shown in Fig.2 (t = 0.7 mm). Due
to various cylinder diameters (D = 6–12 m), the col-
umn number n was replaced by the column separation
ds . The calculated relationships between the column
profile slenderness λcol and column distance ds were
slightly non-linear. The column profile slenderness
λcol from FEM slightly increased with increasing
column separation (ds = 1.0–1.3 m) that was more pro-
nounced for the smaller silo diameter D. The greater
the silo diameter, the larger was the difference between
FEM and EC3, EN 1993-4-1: up to about 250% for
ds > ds,max and about 40% for ds < ds,max . According
to EC3, EN 1993-4-1 when ds > ds,max there is no
influence of the silo diameter and column profile slen-
derness on the buckling form. The results indicate that
the smaller the silo diameter, the thicker column pro-
files are required to obtain global buckling and the
silos with the smaller silo diameter D are more exposed
to local buckling.
The number of circumferential buckling waves dur-
ing global buckling altered within the column number
growth. It increased from 5 waves (n = 5) up to
11 waves (n = 25) and decreased down to 9 waves
(n = 40) for D = 6 m. It increased from 12 waves
(n = 15) up to 18 waves (n = 40) and decreased down
to 16 waves (n = 60) for D = 16 m. Figures 4 and
5 demonstrate the influence of the column profile
Figure 2. Influence of column profile slenderness λcol, silo
diameter D and column distance ds on silo buckling form
from FEM and EC3 EN 1993-4-1 (silo height H = 10 m, cor-
rugation 18 × 76 mm2 with thickness t = 0.7 mm, region ‘A’–
global buckling forms and region ‘B’– local buckling forms).
229
slenderness, column number, wall corrugation height
and wall thickness t on the silo buckling form for 3
different cylinder diameters (D = 6 m, D = 8 m and
D = 12 m) and wall corrugation heights (d = 9 mm,
d = 18 mm and d = 25 mm).
With the growth of the wall thickness t (Fig.3) and
corrugation height d (Fig.4), thicker column profiles
were required to obtain a global buckling form. The
effect of the column number n on λcol was signifi-
cant for n < 20 (D = 6) – it becomes stronger for the
smaller t and similar for d. The higher the silo wall
thickness t and corrugation height d, the more the
silo were exposed to local column buckling (thicker
profiles were required to reach the critical slender-
ness). The calculated number of circumferential waves
during global buckling increased with increasing wall
thickness t, silo diameter D and column number n: for
the silo with D = 6 m and t = 0.7 mm, it grew from
5 waves (n = 5) up to 11 waves (n = 25) and then
Figure 3. Influence of column profile slenderness λcol , col-
umn number n and wall thickness t on silo buckling form from
FEM and EC3 1993-4-1 (silo height H = 10 m, wall corruga-
tion 18 × 76 mm2 , silo diameter D = 6 m, region ‘A’ – global
buckling forms and region ‘B’ – local buckling forms).
Figure 4. Influence of column profile slenderness λcol , col-
umn number n and corrugation height d on silo buckling
form from FEM and EC3 1993-4-1 (silo height H = 10 m,
silo diameter D = 6 m, corrugation length 76 mm, t = 2 mm,
region ‘A’ – global buckling forms and region ‘B’ – local
buckling forms).
decreased down to 9 waves (n = 40), for the silo with
D = 6 m and t = 4.0 mm, it grew from 6 waves (n = 5)
up to 12 waves (n = 25) and then decreased down to
10 waves (n = 40).
6 CONCLUSIONS
The effect of column profile dimensions, diameter,
corrugation wall thickness and height, column num-
ber/column distance on buckling of cylindrical metal
silos with corrugated sheets and open-sectional col-
umn profiles was comprehensively investigated using
FEM. The following conclusions can be derived from
our linear buckling analyses for perfect shell struc-
tures:
– The key parameters which affect a silo buckling
form are: silo diameter, corrugation wall dimen-
sion, number and slenderness of column profiles.
The silos are more vulnerable to local buckling with
increasing column profile slenderness (expressed
by the ratio of the profile side length and profile
thickness), column number (up to a certain value),
corrugation wall thickness, corrugation wall height
and smaller silo diameter. The column profile
thickness has obviously the greatest influence.
– Global buckling is easily obtained for a small
column number. The number of circumferential
waves during global buckling increases with the
increasing column number, wall thickness and silo
diameter and growing column profile thickness.
– The EC3 1993-4-1 provides a strongly incorrect for-
mula (too conservative) for ds > ds,max to estimate
the global buckling strength. The differences in the
critical column profile slenderness of EC3 1993-
4-1 and FEM are up to 400%. They increase with
growing D and ds and decreasing d, t and n.
230
– The numerical difference between the local and dis-
tortional form of the column profile slenderness
versus the column number was not greater than
60%. The maximum discrepancy in profile slen-
derness between FEM and analytical formulae was
20% for a large column number. For the column
number n < 21, local buckling was not possible
according to EC3 (it took place in the FE analyses).
REFERENCES
Brown, C. J. & Nielsen, J., 1998. Silos. Fundamentals of the-
ory, behaviour and design. E & FN Spon, London-New
York.
Eurocode 3, EN 1993-1-3. Design of Steel Structures. Part
1-3: General rules – Supplementary rules for cold-formed
members and sheeting, 2006.
Eurocode 3, EN 1993-1-5. Design of Steel Structures. Part
1-5: Plated structural elements, 2006.
Eurocode 3, EN 1993-4-1. Design of Steel Structures. Part
4-1: Silos, Tanks and Pipelines-Silos, 2007.
Iwicki, P., Wójcik, M. & Tejchman, J. 2011. Failure of
cylindrical steel silos composed of corrugated sheets and
columns and repair methods using a sensitivity analysis,
Engineering Failure Analysis 18: 2064–2083.
Rotter, J. M. 1998. Guide for the economic design of
cylindrical metal silos. E & FN Spon. London-New York.
Safarian, S.S. & Harris, E.C. 1985. Design and construction
of silos and bunkers. Van Nostrad Reinhold Company.
Tejchman, J. & Gudehus, G. 1993. Silo-music and silo-quake,
experiments and a numerical Cosserat approach. Powder
Technology 762: 201–212.
Wilde K., Rucka M. & Tejchman J. 2008. Silo music – mech-
anism of dynamic flow and structure interaction. Powder
Technology 186: 113–129.
Wójcik, M., Iwicki, P. & Tejchman, J. 2011. 3D buckling anal-
ysis of a cylindrical metal bin composed of corrugated
sheets strengthened by vertical stiffeners, Thin-Walled
Structures 49: 947–963.