ARTICLE IN PRESS

Biosystems Engineering (2005) 91 (3), 335–348

doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.03.012
SE—Structures and Environment

Analysis of Dynamic Discharge Pressures in Cylindrical Slender Silos with a Flat

Bottom or with a Hopper: Comparison with Eurocode 1
Pablo Vidal1; Manuel Guaita2; Francisco Ayuga3
1
Escuela Ingenierı́as Agrarias, University of Extremadura, Crtra. de Cáceres s/n 06071 Badajoz, Spain; e-mail of corresponding author:
pvidal@unex.es
2
E.P.S. University of Santiago de Compostela, Campus Universitario, 27002, Lugo, Spain; e-mail: guaita@lugo.usc.es
3
E.T.S.I. Agrónomos, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain; e-mail: ayuga@cvr.etsia.upm.es

(Received 26 April 2004; accepted in revised form 8 March 2005; published online 11 May 2005)

Few models simulate the discharge of flat-bottom silos by using finite elements. This paper presents a new
dynamic model for silo discharge using the Drucker–Prager plasticity model. The model was used to study
discharge in mixed flow and mass flow silos with rigid walls. Various silos were analysed, and pressures under
different flow patterns were compared. Results were also compared with Eurocode 1—part 4 on actions in
silos and tanks, which is the standard used in the European Union. Overpressure coefficients due to discharge
were obtained in all cases. In the case of flat-bottom silos, overpressures occurred in the lower part of the silo.
The values obtained for overpressures were lower than the values obtained in the case of mass flow hopper
silos. The effects of wall friction and outlet radius were also analysed.
r 2005 Silsoe Research Institute. All rights reserved
Published by Elsevier Ltd

1. Introduction mass flow, i.e. a discharge with total movement of the

Silos are important structures for bulk storage of a
variety of produce. The silo wall must withstand the
pressures exerted by the material stored in the silo. The
main problem in silo design is that the load of the stored
material must be precisely determined so that the
appropriate wall thickness can be calculated.
The interaction between the silo structure and the
stored material is of interest because the knowledge of
loads over the wall of silos is scarce, especially in flat
bottom and eccentric silos. These loads include static
pressures, which act on silo walls when the material
remains at rest; and discharge pressures, which are
higher at the initial stages of discharge.
Circular section silos of central discharge are known
to minimise the material used in silo manufacture. The
most widely used silos are silos with concentric hoppers,
and flat-bottom silos. Flat-bottom silos are easier to
build. However, research in the last few years has
focused on cylindrical silos with conical hoppers, while
flat-bottom silos have remained in the background.
Conical hoppers with an adequate inclination enable
1537-5110/$30.00
stored content. Conversely, in flat-bottom silos, a part
of the material at the bottom of the silo remains at rest
while the rest of the material flows. This type of flow is
termed mixed flow.
The tools used in silo research include experimental,
analytical and numerical techniques. Experimental
analyses are complex, and their main drawbacks are
high costs and difficulty to generalise results. The
application of analytical methods is very complex due
to the nature of the problem being solved. Therefore,
numerical methods have become usual in research in
actions on silos. Moreover, these methods are cheap and
allow performance of parametric studies. In this work,
the finite element method (FEM) is applied to the study
of flat-bottom silos as compared with hopper silos.
2. Literature review
Finite element analysis of silos requires the use of an
appropriate law to describe the behaviour of the
material. The use of elastic models is not recommended
335 r 2005 Silsoe Research Institute. All rights reserved
Published by Elsevier Ltd
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
336 P. VIDAL ET AL.
Notation
am variability parameter of the friction coefficient
dc characteristic dimension of inside silo cross-section
(diameter in circular sections), m
f load vector
h height of the silo, m
hc height of vertical-walled segment of silo from the
transition to the equivalent surface, m
because elastic models cannot consider the behaviour of
the granular material correctly. During the last 15 years,
in the field of silo analysis using numerical methods, the
Drucker–Prager model of behaviour (Drucker & Prager,
1952) has been widely used (Link & Elwi, 1990; Dı́ez &
Godoy, 1992; Meng et al., 1997; Ayuga et al., 2001a,
2001b; Martı́nez et al., 2002; Guaita et al., 2003; Wojcik
et al., 2003; Goodey & Brown, 2004).
Different models of behaviour of the material were
used by other authors to study silo discharge. These
studies showed a large disparity in results (Rotter et al.,
1998). However, the Drucker–Prager criterion some-
times offers the best approximations, if compared with
experimental results (Meng et al., 1997; Goodey et al.,
2003).
Studies on the analysis of flat-bottom silos are far less
common than studies on hopper silos. Only a few works
are published in international literature (Munch-Ander-
sen & Nielsen, 1990; Ragneau & Aribert, 1995; Nielsen,
1998; Rotter et al., 1998; Sanad et al., 2001; Zhong et al.,
2001; Guines et al., 2001; Goodey & Brown, 2004).
Munch-Andersen and Nielsen (1990) showed the
filling process had no influence in the type of discharge
flow, which was always mixed in the case of wheat in
slender silos. Furthermore, mixed flow in slender silos
was found to produce higher pressures during discharge.
Marked differences were detected between test silos and
real silos due to scale effects.
Ragneau and Aribert (1995) used models of beha-
viour of the stored material taken from soil mechanics
and discharge was defined by a steady-state quasi-static
condition. Firstly, Boyce’s hyperelastic model was
considered in the elastic domain, and Wilde plasticity
model was applied when elastic deformations were
overcome. This model was applied to silos with either
a flat bottom or a hopper bottom. In flat bottom silos,
the failure boundary was located at 45 þ f=21 above the
bottom of the silo, where f is the internal friction angle.
Nielsen (1998) stated that the failure boundary had a
stable position, but his study did not offer geometrical
values.
K stiffness matrix
M mass matrix
ü nodal acceleration vector
u nodal displacement vector
f internal friction angle, deg
In Rotter et al. (1998), a summary of the results of a
collaborative study on the discharging of a silo
conducted by different authors was presented. The
study investigated the discharge of a silo with either a
hopper bottom or a flat bottom, with both rigid walls
and plane stress. The results for the flat-bottom silo
showed considerable disparity. Two out of the three
results published showed a negative increase of silo
pressures during discharge in two-thirds of the silo wall,
and increases in the lower part of the silo. It should be
regarded that maximum values occur at different heights
only in the zone where the material is at rest, which
suggests that the position of the failure boundary can
take different values.
Sanad et al. (2001) expanded the analysis conducted
by Rotter et al. (1998) and provided more data about
silos with a flat bottom. This study compared the results
obtained for pressures by using the discrete element
method (DEM) and the FEM. Differences in results
were attributed to the characteristics inherent to both
methods. The FEM studies conducted by various
research groups used different models for the behaviour
of the material. The first research group in this study
considered the stored material as a non-linear elastic
porous solid with the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion.
The study analysed discharge by applying displacements
to the material located at the outlet. The second research
group studied the emptying of these silos by applying
Boyce’s non-linear elastic model with the Drucker–Pra-
ger criterion for the plastic domain. Discharge was
defined by a steady-state quasi-static condition, pre-
viously determined by a failure boundary at 45 þ f=2 to
the horizontal plane, which means 6251 in the case of
the material proposed by the study. The third group
considered a dynamic analysis using a viscoplastic
model for silo filling and emptying. All of the groups
reported an increase in pressures in the lower part of the
silo wall. In Sanad et al. (2001), the discharge of a flat-
bottom silo was analysed by seven international research
groups by using the DEM and following a mixed flow
pattern. The failure boundary had a mean value of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
ANALYSIS OF DYNAMIC DISCHARGE PRESSURES
inclination to the horizontal plane equal to 90-f;
specifically 551. This value ranged 601 to 481 for a
material with an internal friction angle f of 351.
An interesting study using plastic pellets (Zhong et al.,
2001) showed how the failure boundary remained stable
when the angle of inclination to the vertical plane was
equal to the internal friction angle. A scarcely clarifying
case was proposed for a material with a value for f of
401. The discharge height was larger than the silo
diameter.
Guines et al. (2001) used the non-linear Hujeux’s
model (Aubry & Hujeux, 1982) for the elastic domain,
and the Cam-Clay plasticity model to simulate silo
discharge under non-dynamic conditions. This model
was applied for the calculation of a flat-bottom silo with
the same failure boundary as Ragneau and Aribert
(1995). At the failure boundary, external forces equiva-
lent to the forces at the other side of this boundary were
applied in order to transfer the stresses of the material,
as shown in Guines et al. (2001). It should be noted that
in Ragneau and Aribert (1995) and Guines et al. (2001)
the highest overpressures were obtained in the zone
where material is at rest.
In a recent study, Goodey and Brown (2004) analysed
the effect of base boundary conditions of cylindrical
silos to detect the origin of the increase in pressures at
the base of the silo. The analysis was conducted by
studying silo-layered fill, but it did not tackle the
problem of discharge. The material was simulated by
using ABAQUS software with the Drucker–Prager
plasticity criterion and surface-to-surface contact ele-
ments. The contact algorithm used was not specified.
Another problem associated with FEM analysis of
flat-bottom silos is the grain-wall friction model.
Friction models evolved from Jofriet et al. (1977) until
present. Jofriet proposed a node-to-node friction model,
widely used until recently (Meng et al., 1997). These
models evolved into the model used for more modern
contact elements: the surface-to-surface model. The
surface-to-surface model is much more realistic than
the previous models and was developed in several
research works (Cescotto & Charilier, 1992; Cescotto
& Zhu, 1994; Simo & Laursen, 1992).
In addition, the present paper considers the proposal
of the last draft of Eurocode (prENV 1991-4. Eurocode
1, 2003), which estimates discharge pressures by apply-
ing an overpressure coefficient to the analytic solution of
static pressures. According to the future Eurocode on
actions in silos, a silo is considered a slender silo when
the ratio of the height to the diameter of the vertical
section hc =d c X2; and a squat silo when 04ohc =d c p1:
In this standard, solutions are offered for the calculation
of pressures on cylindrical walls, and for the calculation
of hoppers or flat bottoms. Yet, the standard does not
337
question the effects of a hopper or a flat bottom on the
cylindrical wall. Previous works by this research group
showed the influence of hopper eccentricity on static
pressures and silo discharge (Ayuga et al., 2001b; Guaita
et al., 2003; Vidal, 2003). The French standard AFNOR
P22 630 (1992) takes into consideration the influence of
a flat bottom or a hopper in the study of pressures
exerted on the wall.
3. Purpose
The main purpose of this study is to model the
dynamic discharge of a cylindrical mixed flow silo (silo
with a flat bottom), and of a cylindrical mass flow silo
(silo with a hopper), by applying FEM. The surface-to-
surface model was considered for grain-wall contact,
and the Drucker–Prager model was used for the
behaviour of the material.
Other objectives are: to analyse the results of static
and dynamic pressures in both silos; to estimate the
overpressure coefficient; to compare the results with
those proposed by the last draft of the Eurocode; and to
analyse the influence of the friction coefficient and the
influence of the outlet radius.
4. Simulation details
In order to conduct the analysis, the reference silo
used was a cylindrical silo with a flat bottom, or with a
hopper with an inclination of 651, a radius of 2 m, a
height of 14 m and an outlet radius of 06 m, as shown in
Fig. 1.
Table 1 shows the parameters defined for the stored
material. All the values used in this study were analysed
experimentally by Moya et al. (2002) and Moya (2001),
using the Spanish Horzal wheat variety. In addition to
the elastic parameters necessary for the elastic part of
the behaviour of the material—Young’s modulus and
Poisson’s ratio—cohesion, internal friction angle, and
dilatancy angle are required to define plastic behaviour
with the Drucker–Prager plastic model. These para-
meters were tested in Moya et al. (2002) and Moya
(2001). The results reported in the mentioned studies are
included in this work. In addition to the parameters that
describe the behaviour of the material, specific weight
and friction coefficient were analysed. In this case, the
friction coefficient corresponds to friction between grain
and a metal wall.
According to the mentioned dimensions and values
for the material, and from the classification contained in
the Eurocode, the silo can be classified as a class 2
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
338 P. VIDAL ET AL.
14 m

65º

65º
0.6 m 2m 65º
Fig. 1. Geometry and dimensions of the silo

Fig. 2. Meshes of axisymmetric elements used to simulate

discharge
Table 1
Parameters of the material

Parameter Value
Grain–wall friction follows the classical Coulomb
Specific weight 84 kN/m3 model, which is sufficiently valid for this analysis. The
Young’s modulus 51 kPa contact element used was a one-dimensional, two-node
Poisson’s ratio 03 element, paired with another two-node contact element,
Grain–wall friction coefficient 02
Internal friction angle 251 with two integration points at the grain-wall contact
Apparent cohesion 3 kPa lines of the elements. These two elements were the
Dilatancy angle 1761 ANSYS elements Targe169 and Conta171, which are in
accordance with the characteristics of the contact
proposed by Cescotto and Charilier (1992).
In the analyses, the resolution algorithm used for the
slender silo with a steep hopper. Silos of class 2 have a contact was ‘penalty function+Lagrangian multiplier’.
capacity exceeding 100 000 kg. Results showed no differences between the calculations
An axisymmetrical FEM analysis was used to make made by applying this method or by applying just
calculations, considering a rigid wall. The elements that penalty function.
represent the granular material are four-node elements To solve silo discharge, a transient dynamic analysis
with two degrees of freedom—axial displacement and was conducted, based on the following equation:
radial displacement. Figure 2 shows the finite element
mesh for both cases, generated with four-node elements. M u€ þ Ku ¼ f (1)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
ANALYSIS OF DYNAMIC DISCHARGE PRESSURES 339

where: M is the mass matrix; K is the stiffness matrix; ü

is the nodal acceleration vector; u is the nodal
displacement vector; and f is the load vector.
A non-linear analysis was performed, divided into two
stages. The first stage was silo filling, conducted by
applying a static analysis. The second stage was carried
out after eliminating the constraints at the silo outlet, by
applying a transient dynamic analysis.
The discharge of all silos was studied for 15 s. In this 45º
interval, discharge pressures were higher than static 35º
pressures, gradually increasing until a maximum value
was reached. From that moment, discharge pressures
started decreasing. The time of discharge analysis was (b) (c)
similar to the intervals used by Wojcik et al. (2003). The
results presented for dynamic pressures corresponded to
the calculation of the envelope of the different discharge 65º
curves obtained for different times of analysis.
To solve the analysis, the ANSYS programming 55º
language, a finite element software was used. The use
of these systems enables easier diversification of results
among scientists around the world, and includes the
improvements in numerical methods in a faster and
more efficient manner. (d) (e)
In the hopper silo, variations in the calculation of
static and dynamic pressures only modify the boundary
conditions. The elimination of constraints at the bottom
of the hopper resulted in a displacement of all the (a)
material towards the silo outlet, as explained above.
The discharge of the flat-bottom silo was studied Fig. 3. Models for flat-bottom silos and angles to horizontal
based on the results obtained by Jenike and Johansson plane: (a) axisymmetric view of different failure boundaries;
(b) failure boundary at 351; (c) failure boundary at 451; (d)
(1968), considering that a failure boundary occurs failure boundary at 551; (e) failure boundary at 651
during discharge. The failure boundary adopts different
positions at different stages of the discharge process.
Moreover, according to the mentioned studies (Munch- stored wheat. These models fully represent the possible
Andersen & Nielsen, 1990; Ragneau & Aribert, 1995; positions of the failure boundary. Different inclination
Nielsen, 1998; Rotter et al., 1998; Sanad et al., 2001; angles were considered in the failure boundary: 351 [Fig.
Zhong et al., 2001; Guines et al., 2001), two zones can be 3(b)] 451 [Fig. 3(c)] 551 [Fig. 3(d)] and 651 [Fig. 3(e)]. The
distinguished in the silo: a zone where the material is in proposed values were considered sufficient if compared
motion, and a zone where the material is at rest, divided with the value of the internal friction angle f of 251.
by the failure boundary. This failure boundary appears As in the case of the hopper silo, the material stored in
not to vary greatly in position, at least in flat-bottom the flat-bottom silo was defined assuming friction with
silos. Moreover, the location of this boundary cannot be the silo wall. The wall was considered rigid, which is a
shown in a precise manner because there are few studies common simplifying hypothesis that helps to decrease
on the discharge of flat-bottom silos, and great the convergence time of the results.
disparities are found among authors.
In order to consider this effect, several models of flat-
bottom silos were developed in this study with a failure 5. Results and discussion
boundary inside the granular material, represented by a
contact zone, Fig. 3(a). The contact zone represented the The results presented below analyse the variation in
friction between static and dynamic parts during static and discharge pressures, and the overpressure
discharge. The separation between these two parts of coefficient between static and dynamic pressures.
the granular material was defined by using surface-to- All the values for pressures correspond to horizontal
surface contact elements with a coefficient of friction pressures and are expressed in kPa. The results are
equal to the tangent of the internal friction angle of the compared in all cases with the last draft of Eurocode 1.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
340 P. VIDAL ET AL.

5.1. Silo with failure boundaries at 651, 551, 451 and 351
to the horizontal plane
First, the static and discharge pressures for a flat-
bottom silo with a failure boundary at 651 to the
horizontal plane are presented. The model developed in
this study shows great stability and ease of convergence.
Figure 4(a) shows both static and dynamic pressures.
The silo is represented on the left part of the figure. Static
pressures show a similar distribution to the distribution
established by Janssen equation. The values presented are
lower than the values proposed by Eurocode for static
pressures in the cylindrical part of the silo. Static
pressures produce stresses on the material, which serve
as the reference to consider the initial moment of
discharge and eliminate constraints at the outlet.
By analysing displacements of the stored material
under the failure boundary, it was observed that—
unlike the rest of the stored material—this part of the
material remained at rest.
Within discharge pressures, two important zones
divided by the effective transition can be distinguished.
The upper part, in which all the material contacting the
wall is in motion, and the lower part, where the highest
horizontal discharge pressures occur. A strong increase
occurs in the zone of the failure boundary (the last 3 m
of the silo wall). This increase reaches a value of
8354 kPa, then decreases to about 64 kPa. A strong
increase in the dynamic pressure occurs at the joint of
the wall and the bottom of the silo. The maximum
pressure is obtained at the silo bottom in accordance
with Ragneau and Aribert (1995), Rotter et al. (1998),
and Guines et al. (2001), Goodey and Brown (2004).
The silos used in the mentioned studies were flat-bottom
silos of rectangular section, not circular, except in
Goodey and Brown (2004). It should be noted that
pressures in rectangular silos are different at the edges
than at the centre of the wall; on the contrary, pressures
in axisymmetric cylindrical silos are constant around the
wall.
The overpressure coefficient is analysed at different
heights of the silo [Fig. 4(b)]. This coefficient takes a
mean value of 125 above the failure boundary, while the
mean value is 2 under the failure boundary, which
corresponds to the material at rest. The overpressure
coefficient locally increases up to a value of 262 in the
zone of the effective transition, and to a value of 314 at
the silo bottom.
In Rotter et al. (1998), the overpressure coefficients
can be estimated indirectly because there are no values

14 14

13 13

12 12

11 11

10 10

9 9
Height h, m

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 −20 −40 −60 −80 −100 −120 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
(a) Horizontal pressure, kPa (b) Overpressure coefficient
Fig. 4. (a) Horizontal pressures in kPa in a flat-bottom silo with a failure boundary at 651 versus height: —, static pressure; TT,
dynamic pressure; (b) overpressure coefficient versus height
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
ANALYSIS OF DYNAMIC DISCHARGE PRESSURES 341

published for the overpressure coefficient in this type of
silos, at least as far as the authors know. The
overpressure coefficients reach values lower than 1 in
the zone above the failure boundary, which appears to
contradict experimental results (Munch-Andersen &
Nielsen, 1990). These results reveal scarce knowledge
of this type of silos.
In agreement with Goodey and Brown (2004),
Fig. 4(a) shows a pressure peak in horizontal pressures
at the end of the silo wall. If the silo discharge is
analysed by applying displacements to the stored
material at the outlet, the pressure peak disappears
[Fig. 5(a)]. Goodey and Brown (2004) make an
interesting analysis of the origin of such pressure peak
and conclude that granular materials with high values of
Poisson’s ratio show pressure peaks at the silo bottom
because vertical pressure is high. From among the
materials analysed, wheat is the material that generates
the highest pressure peak at the silo bottom. Without
conducting experimental analyses, the comparison of
results in Fig. 4(a) and in Fig. 5(a) could suggest that this
pressure can be more easily detected when the strain
history of the material is considered. This hypothesis
would account for the fact that no pressure peak occurs
in filling pressures in Fig. 4(a), while the pressure peak is
observed in discharge pressures in Fig. 4(a), and in the
analysis of silo fill reported by Goodey and Brown
(2004). Moreover, if the overpressure coefficients
obtained for the non-dynamic situation in Fig. 5(b) are
compared with the dynamic situation in Fig. 4(b),
notably lower values are observed for the non-dynamic
model than for the dynamic model.
The failure boundary of the second dynamic model
was located at an inclination of 551 to the horizontal
plane. The zone with the material at rest reached a
height of 2 m on the wall.
The analysis of pressures in this silo [Fig. 6(a)] shows
that the values for static pressures are very similar to the
pressures obtained in the previous case because the
failure boundary does not have any effect on static
pressures. The results were also verified by comparing
the stresses of the stored material during silo filling with
the same silo without the failure boundary.
The shape of discharge pressures in a silo with the
effective transition at 551 to the horizontal plane [Fig.
6(a)] is similar to the shape of the pressures obtained in
the situation described above. The same zones can be
differentiated. In the upper part, the results are similar
in shape to static results, but the values are higher than
the values obtained at rest. During discharge, pressures

14 14

13 13

12 12

11 11

10 10

9 9
Height h, m

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 −20 −40 −60 −80 −100 −120 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
(a) Horizontal pressure, kPa (b) Overpressure coefficient
Fig. 5. (a) Horizontal pressures in kPa for a non-dynamic analysis in a flat-bottom silo with a failure boundary at 651 versus height:
—, static pressure; TT, discharge pressure; (b) overpressure coefficient versus height
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
342 P. VIDAL ET AL.

14 14

13 13

12 12

11 11

10 10

9 9
Height h, m

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 −20 −40 −60 −80 −100 −120 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
(a) Horizontal pressure, kPa (b) Overpressure coefficient
Fig. 6. (a) Horizontal pressures in kPa in a flat-bottom silo with a failure boundary at 551 versus height: —, static pressure; TT,
dynamic pressure; (b) overpressure coefficient versus height

to the wall increase and take a mean value of 73 kPa,
and two local values of 9235 and 100 kPa.
The overpressure coefficient takes different values
[Fig. 6(b)] because dynamic pressures increase and static
pressures remain the same as in the previous case. In the
zone of the wall, above the failure boundary, this
coefficient takes a mean value of 13, which is slightly
higher than in the previous case. In the dead zone of the
silo, the overpressure coefficient increases, and reaches
values higher than 2 in all cases. A mean value of 213 is
obtained between a height of 05 and 15 m [Fig. 6(b)].
The values for local increases in pressure are higher than
in the previous case, as revealed by the coefficients of
overpressure obtained at these points, with values of
288 and 33.
The third dynamic model studied has an inclination
of the failure boundary of 451 [Fig. 7(a)], which
corresponds to a height of 14 m on the wall. This
model does not show difficulties of convergence, but
more calculation time is required to reach a solution
than in the previous two cases. The calculation time for
discharge pressures is also 15 s. This value is sufficient
because the value of pressures decreases from that
moment.
Static pressures are identical to the pressures obtained
in previous cases, as expected. The values for discharge
pressures at the part of the silo located above the failure
boundary are similar to the values obtained in previous
models. Under the effective transition, the values for
pressures in the intermediate zone under the failure
boundary are similar among them, with a mean value of
around 80 kPa, and local peak pressures of 100 kPa.
In the previous model, dynamic pressures showed a
tendency to increase. In accordance with this tendency,
the overpressure coefficient [Fig. 7(b)] increases, reach-
ing values of 235 at the intermediate zone, and
maximum local values of 3 and 33. These values are
mainly caused by the low values of static pressures in
these zones of flat-bottom silos.
The last dynamic model had an inclination of the
effective transition of 351 to the horizontal. Only the
first 07 s of discharge are presented. As expected, a
model with this inclination in the failure boundary
shows great difficulties for slipping of particles. From
the first 07 s onwards, the values obtained for pressures
must be disregarded. In addition, convergence is
difficult, and great computational efforts are required
to reach a discharge time of 13 s. This result is justified
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
ANALYSIS OF DYNAMIC DISCHARGE PRESSURES 343

14 14
13 13
12 12
11 11

10 10

9 9
Height h, m

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 −20 −40 −60 −80 −100 −120 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
(a) Horizontal pressure, kPa (b) Overpressure coefficient
Fig. 7. (a) Horizontal pressures in kPa in a flat-bottom silo with a failure boundary at 451 versus height: —, static pressure; TT,
dynamic pressure; (b) overpressure coefficient versus height

by the value of the internal friction angle of wheat,
which is 251.
5.2. Envelope of results of flat-bottom silos
The proposed models show two local increases in the
pressure exerted on the wall, at the effective transition
and at the silo bottom. Literature review revealed
proposals to avoid local pressure increases at the
silo–hopper joint (Keiter & Rombach, 2001). Other
studies, such as couple FEM-DEM study using discrete
elements at the transition (Lu et al., 1997; Jofriet et al.,
1997), take into consideration this increase in pressure.
No fully verified criterion is currently available
according to which real silos and test silos coincide in
the position of the failure boundary. The failure
boundary seems to adopt an inclination close to 90-f
to the horizontal plane, but there is no certainty about
the truth and fixedness of this value during discharge. In
order to consider these effects, Fig. 8 shows the result of
the discharge envelope for silos with an inclination of
the effective transition of 451, 551, and 651. The result
reveals the overpressures caused by different effective
transitions in the studied silos. The values of horizontal
static and dynamic pressures are presented in compar-
ison with the results of the calculation of horizontal
static and discharge pressures using Eurocode 1 part 4
or Rotter (2001). These results were obtained taking into
consideration only the cylindrical wall. Eurocode 1 part
4 does not consider any influence on the part of the silo
wall located under the cylindrical wall.
5.3. Results of mass flow silo and comparison with flat-
bottom silo
In order to verify the models generated in this work,
the results obtained for flat-bottom silos are compared
with the results obtained for a mass flow silo with a
hopper at an inclination of 651 to the vertical. Accord-
ing to previous models, the wall is completely rigid.
Figure 9(a) shows the results of horizontal static and
dynamic pressures compared with horizontal pressures
of Eurocode 1 part 4. Walker’s theory (Walker, 1966)
was used to estimate pressures in the hopper. Like in all
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
344 P. VIDAL ET AL.

14 overpressure coefficient is higher than on the wall, and

takes values ranging 15–2.
13 Figure 10 shows the comparison between horizontal
pressures in a silo with a 651 hopper and the same silo
12 with a flat bottom and the failure boundary at 651. This
figure compares pressures under mass flow and mixed
11 flow conditions. In the vertical wall of the hopper silo,
the values for static and dynamic pressures are similar.
10
The highest differences among static pressures are
9
recorded at the hopper. In contrast, the values are
closer during discharge, and pressures in the flat-bottom
8 silo are lower than pressures in the hopper silo. The
Height h, m

situation is different in the lower part of the silo, in

7 which a decrease in pressures occurs at the outlet of the
hopper silo.
6

5 5.4. Influence of the friction coefficient

4 The friction coefficient is a very important parameter

3 parameter is usually considered constant, it varies with
2
1 Annex E of prENV 1991-4. Eurocode 1, (2003) and
0
0 −20 −40 −60 −80 −100 −120
Horizontal pressure, kPa
Fig. 8. Envelope of horizontal discharge pressures in a flat-
bottom silo compared to pressures according to Eurocode 1 in
kPa versus height: —, static pressure according to finite element
method (FEM); TT, dynamic pressure according to FEM;
, static pressure according to Eurocode 1; , dynamic
pressure according to Eurocode 1
the previous cases presented in this work, an interval of
15 s of discharge is analysed. Within this interval,
discharge pressures reach a maximum and then the
pressures decrease. Figure 9(a) shows that the values for
horizontal static and dynamic pressures are always
lower than the values proposed by Eurocode 1 part 4.
Pressures increase at the transition, as in the majority of
the models that use FEM. The mean discharge pressure
in the upper half of the hopper obtained a value of
80 kPa.
Figure 9(b) shows the overpressure coefficient. As in
experimental studies, discharge pressures are higher
than filling pressures at all heights of the silo, suggesting
an overpressure coefficient higher than 1. The over-
pressure coefficient takes a mean value of 12 between a
height of 4 and 11 m on the silo wall. In the hopper, the
in the calculation of loads on silos. Although this
wall roughness throughout the useful life of the silo.
Therefore, the analysis of the influence of this parameter
is relevant.
Rotter (2001) include the properties of the different
materials usually stored in silos. A modification factor is
adopted depending on the variability of each parameter,
according to a normal distribution (Rotter, 2001). The
modification factor allows the calculation of the
maximum and minimum values of each parameter by
multiplying and dividing the mean value by this factor.
For wheat, the variability parameter am takes a value of
116. As the friction coefficient assumed in this case is
02, the influence of the friction coefficient is studied for
a maximum value of 0232 and a minimum value of
0172, obtained from applying am to the coefficient of
friction of Spanish Horzal wheat.
Figure 11 shows the results obtained from modifying
this parameter in the envelope of pressures for silos with
failure boundaries at 651, 551 and 451. In calculations,
the coefficient of friction was maintained constant at the
failure boundary, which depends on the internal friction
angle of Spanish Horzal wheat.
As was expected according to Janssen law, when the
friction coefficient decreases from 02 to 0172, the value
of static and dynamic horizontal pressures increases at all
heights of the silo. Consequently, the highest pressures
are obtained with this value of the friction coefficient.
The largest difference in dynamic pressures is obtained in
the zone of the wall above the failure boundaries,
considered with average pressure increases of 488%.
These values contrast with the average increase of 365%
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
ANALYSIS OF DYNAMIC DISCHARGE PRESSURES 345

14 14

13 13

12 12

11 11

10 10

9 9
Height h, m

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 −20 −40 −60 −80 −100 −120 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
(a) Horizontal pressure, kPa (b) Overpressure coefficient
Fig. 9. (a) Horizontal pressures in a silo with a 651 hopper by using finite element method (FEM) and Eurocode 1 in kPa versus
height: , horizontal static pressure according to FEM; , horizontal dynamic pressure according to FEM; ,
horizontal static pressure according to Eurocode 1; ,horizontal dynamic pressure according to Eurocode 1; (b) overpressure
coefficient according to FEM versus height

in the lower part of the silo, where the different failure
boundaries of the silo are located. The dependence of
pressures on the friction coefficient is weaker in the lower
part of the silo because friction at the failure boundary
remains unaltered, as confirmed by the fact that static
pressures vary uniformly at all heights of the silo.
The analysis of dynamic pressures for an increase in
the friction coefficient from 02 to 0232 reveals a
decrease in pressures. Like in the previous case, the zone
above the material at rest shows an average decrease of
396%, while the zone under the failure boundary shows
an average decrease of 318%. In this case, friction at the
failure boundary is constant. Therefore, the influence of
the friction coefficient in the zone where the highest
pressures occur is not as important as in the case of
conical hopper silos, in which the variation of grain–wall
friction affects the whole height of the silo.
5.5. Influence of the outlet radius
Outlet aperture determines the quantity of stored
material discharged. In this type of silo, outlet aperture
affects the quantity of material stored under the failure
boundary. If the outlet is wide, a larger quantity of
material flows through it and a smaller quantity of
material remains at rest during silo discharge. In this
section, the influence of the outlet radius on static and
dynamic pressures in the reference flat-bottom silo is
analysed. Three outlet radius values were analysed: 05,
06 and 07 m.
As the size of the outlet aperture varies, and because
different inclinations were assumed for failure bound-
aries of 651, 551 and 451, the height under the failure
boundary is different for each outlet radius. The largest
difference between the height of the effective transition
in the silo with outlet radius 05 m and the height of the
effective transition in the silo with outlet radius 07 m is
not relevant, specifically 044 m. For better understand-
ing results, Fig. 12 plots pressures versus the height of
the ‘reference silo’, without considering the mentioned
difference in height. Figure 12 shows static and dynamic
pressures for the three values of the outlet radius
analysed.
The effect of absorption of horizontal pressures by the
material at rest increases as the outlet radius decreases.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
346 P. VIDAL ET AL.

14 14

13 13

12 12

11 11

10 10

9 9
Height h, m

Height h, m
8

7 7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0 −20 −40 −60 −80 −100 −120 0
Horizontal pressure, kPa 0 −20 −40 −60 −80 −100 −120
Horizontal pressure, kPa
Fig. 10. Horizontal pressures in kPa for a silo with a 651 hopper
or a flat-bottom silo with a failure boundary at 651 to the Fig. 11. Influence of the friction coefficient on the envelope of
horizontal plane versus height: , horizontal static horizontal pressures of the flat-bottom silo in kPa: J, horizontal
pressure in a hopper silo; , horizontal dynamic pressure static pressure with friction coefficient 0172; , horizontal
in a hopper silo; —, horizontal static pressure in flat-bottom silo; dynamic pressure with friction coefficient 0172; —, horizontal
TT, horizontal dynamic pressure in flat-bottom silo static pressure with friction coefficient 02; TT, horizontal
dynamic pressure with friction coefficient 02; W, horizontal
static pressure with friction coefficient 0232; , horizontal
dynamic pressure with friction coefficient 0232

In the zone immediately under the effective transi-

tion, differences in horizontal pressures are scarce.
Differences are larger near the outlet, because the
width of the material at rest increases when the
outlet radius is 05 m, and decreases when the outlet
radius is 07 m. In the zone under the effective
transition, and for an outlet radius of 06 m, pressures
show an average decrease of 721% because the
outlet radius is 01 m smaller. However, if the outlet
radius is 01 m larger, pressures show an average
increase of 543%. In accordance with Goodey and
Brown (2004), a larger outlet radius—07 m—
causes higher vertical pressures because a larger
quantity of material is displaced. Under these circum-
stances, an increase in pressures at the silo bottom can
be expected.
6. Conclusions
This study presents an analysis of the results of
dynamic silo discharge, considering flat-bottom silos,
the Drucker–Prager model of behaviour of the stored
material, and grain–wall surface-to-surface contact. The
analysis was performed by using ANSYS software.
In flat-bottom silos, the values for static pressures are
distributed according to a shape similar to the shape
deduced from Janssen theory.
In the case of cylindrical silos with a flat bottom,
increases in pressures occur during discharge. These
overpressures occur mainly in the lower part of the silo.
During discharge of a cylindrical silo with a flat bottom,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
ANALYSIS OF DYNAMIC DISCHARGE PRESSURES 347

14 15–2. In flat-bottom silos, the value for the overpressure

coefficient on the wall is 15, while in the hopper, the
13 maximum mean value of the coefficient is 23, with local
increases that reach values of 3 and 33.
12 Discharge pressures in a flat-bottom silo that behaves
in mixed flow are lower than discharge pressures in a
11 mass flow hopper silo, considering that the failure
boundary in the flat-bottom silo is equal to the
10
inclination of the hopper. These results are induced by
9
the effect of the material that is at rest.
The decrease in the coefficient of friction between the
Height h, m

8 stored material and the wall causes increases in

discharge pressures that, according to the variation
7 range reported in Eurocode 1, must not exceed 488%.
Increases in such coefficient produce decreases in
6 maximum pressure of 396%. These differences were
observed at the effective transition.
5 The increase in the size of the outlet radius causes
increases in horizontal pressures because the effect of the
4 material at rest is weaker and the quantity of the
material in movement is larger. Maximum pressures of
3 120 kPa were obtained at the bottom of the silo for an
outlet radius of 07 m.
2

1
Acknowledgements
0
0 −20 −40 −60 −80 −100 −120 The authors are grateful to the CICYT (Spanish
Horizontal pressure, kPa Research and Technology Commission) for funding this
Fig. 12. Influence of the outlet radius on the envelope of project (AGL2002-02973).
horizontal pressures of the flat-bottom silo in kPa versus height: Pablo Vidal is grateful to the training and mobility
J, horizontal static pressure with outlet radius 05 m; , program of the Polytechnic University of Cartagena for
horizontal dynamic pressure with outlet radius 05 m; —, granting his stay at the University of Guelph (Canada).
horizontal static pressure with outlet radius 06 m; TT, horizontal
dynamic pressure with outlet radius 06 m; W, horizontal static
pressure with outlet radius 07 m; , horizontal dynamic
pressure with outlet radius 07 m References

AFNOR P22 630 (1992). Construction métallique: silos en

increases in pressures of up to 100 kPa were obtained at
the effective transition and at the silo bottom by using
FEM. The studied silo was 14 m high, had a 2 m radius,
and stored Spanish Horzal wheat.
However, discharge pressures do not correspond to
the Janssen law if it is weighted by a coefficient, as
proposed in Eurocode 1 part 4, due to the influence of
the silo bottom and to the type of flow in this zone. In
such cases, the type of silo bottom may be a criterion to
consider in order to calculate actions on the walls. The
French standard AFNOR P22 630 takes this criterion
into consideration.
In silos with a hopper bottom, the overpressure
coefficient has an approximate value of 12 on the wall.
In the hopper, this coefficient takes values ranging
acier. [Metallic construction: steel silos.] Association Fran-
çaise de Normalisation, Saint-Denis La Plaine Cedex,
France
Aubry D; Hujeux J C (1982). A double memory model with
multiple mechanisms. International Symposium on Numer-
ical Models in Geomechanics, Zurich, 13–17 September
Ayuga F; Guaita M; Aguado P (2001a). Static and dynamic silo
loads using finite element models. Journal of Agricultural Engi-
neering Research, 78(3), 299–308, doi:10.1006/ jaer.2000.0640
Ayuga F; Guaita M; Aguado P; Couto A (2001b). Discharge
and the eccentricity of the hopper influence on the silo wall
pressures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE,
127(10), 1067–1074
Cescotto S; Charilier R (1992). Frictional contact finite
elements based on mixed variational principles. Interna-
tional Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 36,
1681–1701
Cescotto S; Zhu Y Y (1994). Large strain dynamic analysis
using solid and contact finite elements based on a mixed
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
348 P. VIDAL ET AL.
formulation; application to metalforming. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 45, 657–663
Dı́ez M; Godoy L A (1992). Viscoplastic incompressible flow of
frictional-cohesive solids. International Journal of Mechan-
ical Sciences, 34(5), 395–408
Drucker D C; Prager W (1952). Soil mechanics and plastic
analysis on limit design. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics,
10(2), 157–165
Goodey R J; Brown C J (2004). The influence of the base
boundary condition in modelling filling of a metal silo.
Computers and Structures, 82, 567–579
Goodey R J; Brown C J; Rotter J M (2003). Verification of a 3-
dimensional model for filling pressures in square thin-walled
silos. Engineering Structures, 25(14), 1773–1783
Guaita M; Couto A; Ayuga F (2003). Numerical simulation of
wall pressure during discharge of granular material from
cylindrical silos with eccentric hoppers. Biosystems Engineer-
ing, 85(1), 101–109, doi:10.1016/S1537-5110(03)00037-0
Guines D; Ragneau E; Kerour B (2001). 3D finite-element
simulation of a square silo with flexible walls. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 127(10), 1051–1057
Jenike A W; Johansson J R (1968). Bins loads. Journal of
Structure Division, Proceeding of ASCE, 94(ST4),
1011–1041
Jofriet J C; Lelievre B; Fwa F (1977). Friction model for finite
element analyses of silos. Transactions of the ASAE, 20(4),
735–740
Jofriet J C; Negi S C; Lu Z (1997). A numerical model for flow
of granular materials in silos—part 3: parametric study.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 68(3),
237–246, doi:10.1006/jaer.1997.0198
Keiter T W R; Rombach G (2001). Numerical aspects of FE
simulations of granular flow in silos. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 127(10), 1044–1050
Link R A; Elwi A E (1990). Incipient flow in silo–hopper
configurations. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 116,
172–188
Lu Z; Negi S C; Jofriet J C (1997). A numerical model for flow
of granular materials in silos—part 1: model development.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 68(3),
223–229, doi:10.1006/jaer.1997.0196
Martı́nez M A; Alfaro I; Doblaré M (2002). Simulation of
discharging processes in metallic silos. Analysis of the
induced pressure distribution and comparison with different
standards. Engineering Structures, 24(12), 1561–1574
Meng Q; Jofriet J C; Negi S C (1997). Finite element analysis of
bulk solids flow—part 1: development of a model based on a
secant constitutive relationship. Journal of Agricultural En-
gineering Research, 67(2), 141–150, doi:10.1006/jaer.1997.0161
Moya M (2001). Determinación de parámetros fı́sicos de
materiales agrı́colas para su simulación por métodos
numéricos. [Determination of physical parameters of
agricultural materials for simulation by using numerical
methods.] PhD Thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,
Spain
Moya M; Ayuga F; Guaita M; Aguado P (2002). Mechanical
properties of granular agricultural materials. Transactions
of the ASAE, 45(5), 1569–1577
Munch-Andersen J; Nielsen J (1990). Pressures in slender grain
silos CHISA 1990. 2nd European Symposium on Stress and
Strain in Particulate Solids, Prague
Nielsen J (1998). Pressures from flowing granular solids in
silos. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of
London. Philosophical Transaction Mathematical, Physical
and Engineering Sciences, Series A, 356, 2667–2684
prENV 1991-4. Eurocode 1 (2003). Basis of design and actions
on structures—part 4: actions on silos and tanks. Final PT
draft (Stage 34) 5 March 2003. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels
Ragneau E; Aribert J M (1995). Silo pressure calculation: from
a finite element approach to simplified analytical solutions.
Bulk Solids & Handling, 15(1), 71–84
Rotter J M (2001). Guide for the Economic Design of Circular
Metal Silos. Spon Press, London
Rotter J M; Holst F G; Ooi J Y; Sanad M (1998). Silo
pressures predictions using discrete-element and finite-
element analyses. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal
Society of London. Philosophical Transaction Mathemati-
cal, Physical and Engineering Sciences. Series A, 356,
2685–2712
Sanad M A; Ooi J Y; Holst J M F G; Rotter J M (2001).
Computations of granular flow and pressures in a flat
bottom silo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 127(10),
1067–1074
Simo J C; Laursen T A (1992). An augmented Lagrangian
treatment of contact problems involving friction. Computers
and Structures, 42(1), 97–116
Vidal L P (2003). Modelos avanzados para simulación
numérica por elementos finitos de acciones en el vaciado
de silos cilı́ndricos con tolva centrada y excéntrica.
[Advanced models for finite element numerical simulation
of actions in the discharge of cylindrical silos with concentric
and eccentric hoppers.] PhD Thesis, Universidad de
Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Walker D M (1966). An approximate theory for pressures and
arching in hoppers. Chemical Engineering Science, 21(11),
975–997
Wojcik M; Enstad G G; Jecmenica M (2003). Numerical
calculations of wall pressures and stresses in steel cylindrical
silos with concentric and eccentric hoppers. Particulate
Science and Technology, 21(3), 247–258
Zhong Z; Ooi J Y; Rotter J M (2001). The sensitivity of silo
flow and wall stresses to filling method. Engineering
Structures, 23(7), 756–767