STEEL SILO DESIGN

A challenge for designers of steel silos

Jim Durack, engineering doctorate candidate USQ
Professor Charlie Tranberg USQ

Jim Durack has a background in both academic and practicing engineering. He has worked with Aurecon
(formerly Connell Wagner) for the last eight years and is currently on sabbatical leave completing an engineering
doctorate through University of Southern Queensland. Jim is a specialist in the design of industrial structures
for bulk materials handling facilities. He has also worked internationally on the design and assessment of
large inverted cone silos as used primarily in the cement production industry. In 2007 ABHR published Jims
article on the implications for such silos of the then new Eurocode for silo loads, EN1991-4. Since then he has
presented three further conference papers in this field. Both Jim and Professor Tranberg have been involved in
the development of the USQ coursework based, Online delivered, Master of Engineering that has a significant
emphasis on industrial and marine structures.
In preparation for a planned course on silo design, Jim has extended his reinforced concrete silo research to a
speculative investigation of a steel solution for large inverted cone silos. His knowledge and experience with
concrete silos gives him fresh insight into this complex field. Jim considers that there may be a fundamentally new
way of approaching steel silo design that is informed by the Eurocode but not limited by it. This paper provides
a relatively informal presentation of his ideas. He hopes that these may challenge steel silo designers to think
outside the square.

1. Context and background to research

Silos of one form and another are fundamental to the success of
most industrial projects. Ideally a silo will do its job with minimal
maintenance for many years. When a silo suffers some form of failure this may cause massive disruption of plant operations. There
is at least anecdotal evidence that silos suffer severe structural
failures more frequently than any other structure type with the
possible exception of retaining walls. Such structural failures are
still likely to be much less common than operating problems such
as flow interruptions. The operating performance of silos should
continue to be of prime concern to plant operators but those who
are unlucky enough to experience the structural collapse of a
key process silo will recognise the fundamental importance of
structural reliability.
Fundamental to structural design is a rational assessment of
the loads that are likely to develop during the lifetime of a proposed structure. In 1895 Janssen developed the Janssen equation
that for the first time provided a rational method for assessment of
one aspect of the loads exerted by stored material on a silo wall.
It has always been acknowledged that real silo loads are more
complex than those predicted by this equation. Traditional code
methods for silo loads such as those of the ACI code and the now
superseded DIN code, used fairly simplistic fudge factors to
scale up the Janssen equation loads to account for the unknown
and perhaps unknowable complexities of real silo loading.
The Eurocode for silo load estimation EN1991 4 released in
draft form in 1995 is still based on the Janssen equation but specifies a fundamentally different loading model. Research undertaken
by Durack and others generally concludes that while there remain
numerous unanswered questions, there is good evidence to suggest that the Eurocode loading model is substantially correct. For
reinforced concrete silos, Durack has shown the Eurocode to be
considerably more onerous than earlier codes. More importantly, it
forces the designer to consider important structural issues that are
not evident when using earlier code defined loading models. Durack recommends that any contemporary structural designer of reinforced concrete silos should give consideration to the Eurocode
even if the final silo design is not strictly compliant with this code.
Durack has recently undertaken scholarship and finite element modelling to investigate whether the Eurocode load may

84

Australian Bulk Handling Review: July/August 2010

have similar lessons for the designers of steel silos as he has found
it to have for reinforced concrete silos. The following represent
some key findings of this research:
For the design of steel silos, the Eurocode for silo loads EN1991
- 4 is supplemented by the general design code EN1993 - 1 - 6
Strength and Stability of Shell Structures and the silo specific
EN1993 - 4 1 Design of Seel Structures - Silos.
There is limited contemporary academic interest in the
analysis and design of reinforced concrete silos, but a huge
body of academic literature relating to various aspects of the
structural behaviour of steel silos. Much of the literature is
highly specialised in nature and of limited direct relevance
to practicing designers.
Professor Michael Rotter is apparently the most highly published academic working in the steel silo field. He has played a
leading role in the development of all three Eurocodes relevant
to silo design.
Professor Rotter has published a text Guide for the Economic
Design of Circular Metal Silos. This text is specifically directed
to practicing silo designers. First published in 2001 it represents a general guide to steel silo design plus specific guidance
related to the application of the three silo Eurocodes.
Durack has reported that for reinforced concrete silos, the Eurocode for silo loading is more conservative than earlier codes
by a factor in excess of 1.5. No such comparative review for
steel silos has been identified in the published literature.
Rotters text and the codes it supports are typical of code specified design methods. They allow a designer to undertake a design assessment of a proposed steel silo but they provide only
limited assistance in developing the form of understanding that
a designer needs in order to exercise responsible creativity in
achieving a reliable and economic design solution for a particular steel silo application.

2. Focus of the current research

To address the last of the previous dot point items, a combination
of finite element modelling and relatively simplistic first principles
analysis has been undertaken in order to explore structural phenomena exhibited by steel silos in response to the Eurocode load
and related analysis and design issues.

STEEL SILO DESIGN

The research focuses on a 12 500 tonne capacity cement storage inverted cone silo with a diameter of 18 metres and a storage
chamber height of 40 metres. This silo is not typical of most steel
silos that are likely to use a concentric discharge system and to
be smaller and more slender. The case study silo has been chosen
because of the authors interest in reinforced concrete silos of
these proportions.
It should be noted that applicability of the Eurocode for silo
loading specifically excludes the inverted cone discharge system
that is common in the cement industry. This discharge system uses
an inverted cone at the base of the silo that sheds the stored material to sequentially operated discharge points located around the
silo perimeter. Despite this, the research is generally relevant to
the design of a steel silo of any sort.

3. The case study silo and its Eurocode loading

The basic details of the case study silo are shown in Figure
1. This also gives a three dimensional representation of the
Eurocode loading.
In accordance with the Eurocode EN1991 4 Clause 5.2.4.3
and with z measured downwards from the top of the silo, the
loadings phse and phse phce shown in Figure 2, that vary both circumferentially and with height were input as follows:
phse = 150.94 x (1 2.7813 ^ (-z / 14.56)) kPa
phse phce = 150.94 x (1 2.7813 ^ (-z / 14.56)) 40.4 x
(1 2.7813 ^(-z / 3.9)) kPa

Figure 1 Basic silo details and a graphic illustration of the internal pressure on the silo walls.

Figure 2 The decomposition of the Eurocode load into uniform and dierential components.

Figure 3 Two dimensional ring extracted from the 3D silo model.

4. Two dimensional structural phenomena

Prior to considering a three dimensional silo it is informative to
consider the behaviour of a two dimensional ring extracted from
such a silo. Figure 3 represents a 1 metre high ring extracted
from the case study silo with the loading corresponding to that
at a height of 15 metres above the base of the silo.
If the thickness of the 1 metre high ring is set to 25 mm then
it is obvious that these loads are very large. Despite this, we may
expect that the uniform outward pressure should not create a
difficulty because this can only cause a uniform increase in the
circumference of the ring without inducing any bending. The
axial hoop tension can be calculated using the simple hoop tension equation:
T = Uniform pressure x Ring height x Radius
(1)
= 123 kPa x 1 metre x 9 metres
= 1107 kN
The corresponding axial hoop stress around the circumference is then:
fa = 1107 x 103 / (1000 x 25)
= 44.3 MPa
The differential pressure of +/- 85 kPa over the 30 (4.71 metre arc length) flow zone and the two adjacent shoulder zone
would obviously cause a problem if the load had to be carried
by bending action in the flexible 25 mm thick plate. Fortunately
this is not the case.
The hoop tension equation is commonly applied to uniform pressure situations but may also be applied to situations
where the pressure varies around the perimeter. It may be put
in the form:
T() = p() x r() (for unit ring height)
(2)
Where T(), p() and r() represent the values of the hoop
tension, radial pressure and ring radius at any location around
the perimeter of the ring. Equation (2) may be algebraically rearranged as:
r() = T() / p()
It may readily be shown by FE modelling or consideration of
a small differential arc element of the ring, that for loading of the
type shown in Figure 2, the hoop tension T() remains constant
at the value given by equation (1). Thus, we may write:
r() = T / p()
And substituting for T from Equation (1)
r() = (Uniform pressure / Pressure at position )
x Initial silo radius
(3)
Equation (3) may be read as follows:
Provided the ring changes its shape in response to the load
such that at any angular location around the ring circumference, the ring radius equals the ratio of the uniform pressure
to the pressure at , times the initial silo radius, then the load
will be carried by hoop tension action rather than by bending.
This shape may be referred to as the compliant shape.
For the combination of loads defined in Figure 3 there are
three pressure zones and corresponding radii being:
The general area with phse = 123 kPa with:
r() = 123 / 123 x 9 = 9 metres
The high pressure shoulders with phse + (phse phce)
= 208 kPa with:
r() = 123 / 208 x 9 = 5.32 metres
The low pressure flow zone with p hse (p hse p hce)
= 38 kPa with:
r() = 123 / 38 x 9 = 29.13 metres
These compliant radii are dependent only on the pressure ratios
and are independent of both the thickness of the ring and the actual
magnitude of the pressures. Thus if the pressures are scaled up by
a load factor then there will be no change to the compliant shape
and corresponding radii. Figure 4 represents the FE Prediction of
the compliant shape for the ring subject to the combination of the
uniform and differential components of loading shown in Figure 3.

Australian Bulk Handling Review: July/August 2010

85

STEEL SILO DESIGN















5HGXFHGUDGLXVLQWKH
KLJKSUHVVXUH
VKRXOGHU]RQH

,QFUHDVHGUDGLXVLQ
WKHORZSUHVVXUH
IORZ]RQH

8QFKDQJHG
PHWUHUDGLXVLQ
WKHXQLIRUP
SUHVVXUH]RQH
D9LHZDWDFWXDOVFDOH 

E([DJJHUDWHGGLVSODFHPHQWVFDOHYLHZ

Figure 4 Two representations of the compliant shape.

It may be confirmed from the FE model that the numerically

predicted radii in the shoulder and flow zones are very close
to those predicted using Equation (3). The maximum radial deformations associated with moving to the compliant shape as
predicted by FE modelling are around 380 mm inwards in the
flow zone and 70 mm outwards in the shoulder zones.
The full story is not as simple as this. Firstly, rather than a
stepwise change from one radius to the next there is a small
transition length from one radius to the next. Secondly, Graph
1 shows the radial displacement at the centre of the flow channel as predicted by FE modelling for a ring with a 10 mm thickness, as the load factor on the combined loading increases
from 0 to 2.5. This represents the development of the compliant shape for increasing load.

















2QFHWKHORDGIDFWRUKDVUHDFKHGWKHFRPSOLDQWVKDSHKDV
EHHQHVWDEOLVKHGZLWKDPD[LPXPLQZDUGPRYHPHQWRIPP
DQGIXUWKHULQFUHDVHVLQWKHORDGIDFWRUSURGXFHRQO\YHU\PLQRU
FKDQJHVLQWKHVKDSH

)RUORDGIDFWRUVEHORZVPDOOLQFUHDVHVLQORDGSURGXFHYHU\
ODUJHLQFUHDVHVLQGLVSODFHPHQWDVWKHULQJZLWKYHU\VPDOOEHQGLQJ
VWLIIQHVVPRYHVWRZDUGVWKHFRPSOLDQWVKDSH

Graph 1 The development of the compliant shape as the load increases.

Graph 1 demonstrates that the stiffness of the ring is highly non linear, exhibiting a huge increase in stiffness as the load
increases and the ring moves to the compliant shape. (Durack
has reported on field measurement of the radial deformations
of a 10 000 tonne reinforced concrete silo during discharge
and the use of these measurements to infer the magnitude of
the loading necessary to cause such deformations. One consequence of the non linear tension stiffening behaviour is that
this form of field testing cannot be used to determine unstiffened steel silo wall pressures. As indicated in Graph 1, if the
measured radial displacement is say between 350 and 360 mm
then the pressures causing this displacement could be anywhere corresponding to that for a load factor between 0.1 and
2.5. Despite this limitation, the method should be excellent
for determining pressure ratios in the different flow zones.)
Thirdly, the statement following Equation (3) states that
once the ring reaches the compliant shape, the combined load
is carried by hoop tension rather than by bending. This is not
entirely correct. In moving to the compliant shape, bending
curvatures obviously must develop in order for the radii to
change to the required values. It may readily be shown that
the bending curvatures necessary to establish the compliant
radii in the flow and shoulder zones are given as:

86

Australian Bulk Handling Review: July/August 2010

1 / r bending = 1 / {[(Uniform phse) / (Differential phse phce)]

x initial silo radius}
(4)
= 1 / (123 / 85) x 9
= 0.0768 m-1
In accordance with the engineers theory of bending, bending
strains will develop as a result of this curvature as:
max = ymax / r bending
(5)
Where ymax is the maximum distance from the neutral axis of
the wall of thickness t. Thus ymax = t / 2. The bending stress associated with this bending strain for a material with a modulus of
elasticity E is then given as:
fmax = E x max
(6)
= +/- E x (t/2) / r bending
(7)
The total stress due to the combination of axial hoop tension
and bending necessary to move to the compliant shape is then
given as (for a unit ring height):
ftotal.max = T / t +/- E x (t/2) / r bending
(8)
Table 1 records maximum radial displacements and compares the stress predictions of FE modelling with those of Equation 8 for ring thicknesses varying from 5 mm to 200 mm (with
T = 1107 kN and 1/r bending = 0.0768 m-1 and E = 200 x 103 MPa):

:DOO
SODWH
WKLFNQHVV
PP










0D[LPXP
UDGLDO
GLVSODFHPHQW
PP
From FE
353
357
350
340
327
293
24

$[LDO VWUHVV %HQGLQJ

03D
VWUHVV03D

7RWDO PD[LPXP VWUHVV 7RWDOPLQLPXPVWUHVV

03D
03D


(TXDWLRQ









(TXDWLRQ









(TXDWLRQ









From FE
(327)*
204
210
232
253
276
58

(TXDWLRQ









From FE
(117*)
17
- 99
-143
-179
-221
-46

*Examination of the FE output for the very thin 5 mm plate suggests

that these values are unreliable.
Table 1 Maximum radial displacement and combined ring stresses for diering ring thicknesses.

From Table 1, the following observations may be made:

As the plate thickness increases from 5 mm to 40 mm there
is only a marginal 17% reduction in the maximum radial displacement from 353 mm to 293 mm and the corresponding
bending curvature remains sensibly constant over this thickness range with a value close to that given by Equation (4)
For feasible thickness plates between 5 and 30 mm, the correlation between Equation 8 and FE Modelling is very good. For
a plate thickness of 40 mm Equation 8 is overestimating the
maximum and minimum stresses by around 20%.
The bending stress component of Equation (8) increases with
t/2. As predicted both by Equation (8) and FE modelling this,
perhaps surprisingly, leads to an increase in total stress as the
plate thickness is increased!
For a plate thickness of 200 mm it is clear that Equation 8 has
little relevance. The ring now has substantial flexural stiffness
(similar to that of a typical reinforced concrete silo wall) and
is acting in an entirely different fashion. The small maximum
displacement of 24 mm indicates that the ring has not moved
to the compliant shape where hoop tension can carry the
load. Most of the load is now being carried in flexure with
high bending moments and shear forces.

5. Design implications of 2D structural

phenomena
It is to be expected that the behaviour of a three dimensional
silo will include additional phenomena that are not evident in
a two dimensional ring extracted from such a silo. Despite this,
the findings of the previous section provide a suitable starting
point for understanding and have significant design implications
as summarised below:

STEEL SILO DESIGN

For feasible steel plate thicknesses and the non uniform Eurocode loading, there is a good correlation between the predictions of simple hoop tension theory and results obtained
from FE modelling.
A steel silo is dependent for its equilibrium on moving towards
the compliant shape. Linear static analysis that assesses equilibrium in the undeformed position (with a perfect circular
shape) will not give any meaningful prediction of the actual
behaviour of the silo. All of the previous FE results are based
on geometry non linear analysis.
The Eurocode loading will cause large radial deformations of
an unstiffened steel silo. These large deformations develop at
quite low load factors but as the load increases they reach a
maximum value beyond which they will not further increase.
Increasing the wall thickness of a silo will not significantly
reduce the magnitude of radial deformations (until the thickness reaches very large values more typical of a reinforced
concrete silo).
For a given non uniform load combination, increasing the wall
thickness of a silo will increase the total combined axial and
bending stress. A maximum stress in excess of the yield stress
should not be taken as an indication that the silo is approaching failure. It simply means that with thicker plates, some degree of yield may be necessary to allow the silo to move to the
compliant shape.
For low loads a silo will exhibit very low stiffness but as soon
as it approaches the compliant shape the stiffness will radically increase. For this reason it may be difficult to obtain convergence of an FE solution for the first low increments of loading.

6. Three dimensional case study silo

horizontal effects

The hoop tension force varies around the perimeter of the silo
from 968 to 1252 kN/m. The average of these two figures is
very close to the constant hoop tension in the two dimensional
ring of 1107 kN/m.
The maximum and minimum plate stresses (at the surface of
the plate) are 247 MPa and - 163 MPa compared to those for the
two dimensional ring of 236 MPa and 148 MPa.

Figure 6 Aspects of the behaviour of the Figure 5 silo focussing on the ring level.

7. Three dimensional case study silo - vertical

effects
In addition to the horizontal loading on the silo wall, the stored
material also causes vertical loading as the stored material attempts to slide down the inner face of the silo wall. This vertical
loading is referred to as the wall traction loading and at any depth
and radial position is equal to the horizontal pressure times
the assessed coefficient of friction between the stored material
and the silo wall. As with horizontal loading, traction loading
has been decomposed into a uniform traction component that is
constant around the perimeter and a differential component that
is downwards in the high pressure shoulder zones and upwards
in the low pressure flow zone.
The load path for these traction loads is straight down the silo
wall. Figure 7 shows the analysis results for the uniform traction
component causing a steady increase in the vertical wall stress
from zero at the top to a maximum of - 62 MPa (compression)
at the base of the 25 thick wall. The differential traction component produces a more complex stress variation that includes
both compression and tension areas but with maximum value of
only + 5.4 MPa and 3.6 MPa this is clearly of secondary concern.

Figure 5 First three dimensional silo analysis model.

In Figure 5 the wall thickness has been kept constant to simplify

interpretation of stress information. There is no suggestion that this
thickness is adequate or appropriate for Eurocode loading. Figure
6 illustrates the overall behaviour of the three dimensional silo as
assessed using geometry non linear analysis for a load factor of 1.0.
There are end effects at the base and roof of the silo but in the
central region the silo is deforming in a similar fashion to the two
dimensional ring pulling inwards in the low pressure flow zone
and pushing outwards in the high pressure shoulder zones.
Figure 6 also provides detailed information relating to the ring
level where the horizontal loading is identical to that for the two
dimensional ring previously considered. Referring back to Table
1 the following comparisons may be made between the 25 mm
thick two dimensional ring and the 25 thick ring forming part of
the three dimensional silo:
The maximum silo displacement at the ring level of 229 mm inwards is substantially less than the 340 mm for the two dimensional ring. This means that in the two dimensional ring essentially all of the load is carried by circumferential hoop tension,
but in the silo, some is being carried by an alternative load path.

8QLIRUPWUDFWLRQ
0D[LPXPVWUHVV
 03D 
LQSODWH

















'LIIHUHQWLDOWUDFWLRQ
0D[LPXPVWUHVV
 WR03D

Figure 7 Vertical wall stresses due to uniform and dierential vertical traction taken separately.

The surprise comes with Figure 8 that shows the vertical

wall stresses assessed for the full Eurocode loading including
the uniform and differential components of both the horizontal pressures and vertical tractions.
The view on the left of Figure 8 (a) indicates high stresses
at the base of the silo in the region of the non uniform pressures with maximum values of 237 MPa tension and 210 MPa
compression. These maxima are nearly four times the vertical stresses due to just the vertical traction loads as shown in
Figure 7.

Australian Bulk Handling Review: July/August 2010

87

STEEL SILO DESIGN

The view on the right of Figure 8 (a) represents the same

stresses but with the plotting range limited to 50 MPa tension and
100 MPa compression. This shows that high vertical compression
(and tension) stresses exist high up the wall height. The maximum compression region is the low pressure flow zone. It can be
demonstrated that this increase in vertical stresses is a result of
the differential horizontal loading. It is difficult to come up with
a satisfactory intuitive understanding for this effect. One way of
thinking about it is to consider it to be a result of the curved silo
wall attempting to carry the differential horizontal loading by
spaning vertically from the base of the silo up to the roof. The
very high vertical stresses at the base of the wall correspond to a
rigid base to these vertically spanning wall elements giving rise
to high negative moments at the base of the wall. Despite the
difficulties in understanding the origin of this increase in vertical
stresses, they have to be accepted as being real.














D9HUWLFDOVWUHVVHVDWGLIIHUHQWSORWWLQJVFDOHV 

0.0

RKDOIIORZ]RQH
RVKRXOGHU]RQH
8QLIRUP]RQH

 

E&LUFXPIHUHQWLDOYDULDWLRQLQYHUWLFDO
VWUHVVDWULQJOHYHO

Figure 8 Vertical wall stresses due to the full Eurocode loading.

The magnitude and extent of vertical stresses shown in Figure 8 is of great design significance as it has already been identified that in the flow zone where the compression stresses are
high, the horizontal pressures cause a local increase in the silo
wall radius as it moves towards the compliant shape. As discussed below this causes a reduction in the buckling capacity of
the wall in this region.
Recall that the Euler critical lateral buckling stress for an ideal
axially loaded column with length l and radius of gyration r is:
cr = 2E / [ (l/r) 2 ]
(9)
Now a very tall and slender silo could buckle laterally in this
fashion but it is much more common for a silo to exhibit local
buckling with a buckling shape as illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Typical buckling mode shapes for uniform and non uniform loading.

For uniform vertical loading only, applied to a cylinder of

radius r the formula to predict the development of the form of
buckling illustrated in Figure 9(a) with Poissons ratio of 0.25 is:
cr = 0.6 x E x t / r (10)
= 0.6 x 200 x 103 x 25 / 9000 (for the 25 thick wall and
the original 9 metre silo radius)
= 333 MPa
Figure 9 (a) shows the FE buckling prediction for uniform vertical traction loading only applied to the perfect circular silo. The
buckling stress prediction of 319 MPa shows excellent correlation
to Equation (10).

88

Australian Bulk Handling Review: July/August 2010

The situation for non uniform loading is more complex. It

has already been noted that proper assessment of silo behaviour
requires non linear analysis but finite element buckling analysis by definition, is linear and thus cannot directly predict the
onset of buckling due to non uniform loading with its inherently
non linear characteristics. The analytical Equation (10) is strictly
speaking only applicable to uniform loading but it is informative to apply it in the flow zone region where, for non uniform
loading, the silo moves (almost) to the compliant shape. The FE
model predicts a final silo radius in this region of 24.8 metres.
We then have:
cr = 0.6 x 200 x 103 x 25 / 24 800
= 121 MPa
Figure 9(b) represents the FE buckling prediction, again for
uniform traction loading only but for a model that is initially deformed to the shape illustrated in Figure (6) with the final geometry non linear, 24.8 metre silo radius in the critical region.
The FE prediction of 132 MPa buckling stress is very close to
that of Equation (10) with some increase due to averaging of the
peak stress and the stabilising effect of the adjacent small radius
shoulder regions.
Thus it appears that for this silo, the non uniform Eurocode
loading is causing:
High vertical stresses near the base of the silo
Vertical compression stresses around 100 MPa reaching well
up the height of the silo (compared to a
maximum of 62 MPa at the base of the silo for the uniform
traction loading only)
A substantial reduction in the buckling capacity of the wall in
the flow zone as evidenced by a reduction in the critical buckling stress from 319 MPa down to 132 MPa due to the increase
in the silo radius as it moves towards the compliant shape.

8. Working around the problem

It appears that the Eurocode load, when applied to steel silos,
may be considerably more onerous in comparison to earlier
codes that considered only uniform loading. It can probably be
shown that while there have been an unacceptable number of
failures of steel silos, there are many that are performing well but
do not comply with the requirements of the new loading code.
It would be easy to start criticising the Eurocode for silo loading
that could be seen as being unnecessarily conservative.
The authors research on reinforced concrete silos indicates
that the Eurocode for silo loading probably represents a good
model of actual silo loads. A more creative way around the problem is to consider whether some modification to the traditional
silo structural system may allow the development of a Eurocode
conforming silo without the need for significant additional cost
while providing significantly enhanced structural reliability.
One possibility is the use of some form of corrugated walling or of multiple vertical or circumferential stiffeners - or both.
The author considers that this approach may have its applications in some areas but that in general is unlikely to produce significant benefits. The structural efficiency of a steel silo comes
largely from the flexibility of the thin steel wall and its ability
to move to the compliant shape. Stiffeners will inevitably cause
high stress concentrations as they attempt to fight against the
flexibility of the wall.
A second possibility is illustrated in Figure 10 (b). This makes
use of a single relatively massive stiffener at about one third
height. The idea behind this stiffener started with an acceptance
of the tendency of the silo to attempt to carry some of the non
uniform load by spaning vertically, resulting in high compression
stresses in the high radius flow zone. The stiffener represents
an attempt to provide an internal support for this vertical load
path thus increasing its efficiency in carrying some of the non
uniform components of the load.

STEEL SILO DESIGN
















D

GHHSE\RXWVWDQGLQJ
ER[VWLIIHQHUZLWKLQWHUQDO
GLDSKUDJPVDWDSSUR[LPDWHO\
RQHWKLUGKHLJKW

$VLPSOHXQVWLIIHQHGVLORDWWRQQHV

E

$VWLIIHQHGVLORDWWRQQHV

Figure 10 A modied structural system for a steel silo.

9. Design comparison
To explore the potential advantages of the silo illustrated in Figure 10 (b) compared to the simpler reference silo of Figure 10
(a), a design assessment was undertaken for the two silos. Both
silos were taken as being of Grade 450 steel with elastic plastic
behaviour using the Von Mises yield criterion and with E = 200
x 103 MPa and Poissons ratio = 0.25. Both silos were of identical
geometry and subject to the same loading defined in Figure 2.
A decision was made to use a form of design by advanced
analysis using geometry and material non linear analysis. The
primary decisions necessary for such design assessment involve
setting the magnitude and shape of the imperfections to be incorporated in the analysis model and the choice of an appropriate failure criterion to identify the collapse load. Such decisions
require extensive sensitivity analyses and comparative trialling
against other accepted design methods. The following decisions
were adopted with limited trialling and are intended only to allow for rational comparison of the stiffened and unstiffened silos
on an equal basis.
The nominal geometric construction tolerance on the silo radius was taken as being +/- 30 mm with a magnifier of 3.0 to include for non geometric imperfections such as residual stresses.
Thus the maximum deviation from a perfect cylinder prior to
load application was 90 mm. The deformation due to the non uniform loads is not included as an imperfection as this deformation
is determined directly by the geometry and material non linear
analysis. The shape of the imperfections was different for each
silo being set to that corresponding to the lowest mode buckling
shape for each silo subject to the uniform traction load only but
with an initially deformed shape corresponding to the full Eurocode load.
The failure criterion was taken as the load beyond which a
convergent solution was no longer obtained. This represents a
non conservative failure criterion and some might argue for a
more conservative criterion such as first yield but it has already
been identified that for steel silos that must adopt their compliant shape, yield is not a good indicator of an approaching failure
mechanism.
It was found that both silos reached convergence for Load
Factors up to 3.2 with no convergent solutions beyond this point.
Figure 11 compares the Von Mises strain at the outer surface of
the silo for load factors of 1.67 and 3.2. The plotting range for
strain is limited to the yield strain for Grade 450 steel so white
regions represents regions where yield has developed at the plate
surface.
In principle, a load factor of 1.5 / 0.9 = 1.67 represents the
minimum necessary load factor for code compliance. At this load
factor there is no yield in the heavier unstiffened silo and only
small regions of yield for the lighter stiffened silo. With this slight
exception, both silos achieve the necessary collapse load as assessed using the very conservative first yield failure criterion.
At a load factor of 3.2 as must be expected, the thinner stiffened silo, with extensive regions of yield, is working harder than

the heavier unstiffened one. Despite this, examination of the Von

Mises stress at the mid plane shows no yield for the heavier silo
and only limited regions of yield for the stiffened silo.
It may be concluded that more detailed investigation is likely
to confirm that both silos are code compliant as assessed using
design by advanced analysis - probably with a considerable margin of safety and some possibility of reductions in plate thicknesses. No attempt has been made to identify whether either
or both of these silos comply with the design requirements of
EN1993 - 4 - 1 Design of Seel Structures Silos.















 /) 
/) 



D 7KHVLPSOHXQVWLIIHQHGVLORDWWRQQHV 


/) 

E

/) 

7KHVWLIIHQHGVLORDWWRQQHV

Figure 11 Comparative design assessment for the two silos.

10. Disclaimer and overall conclusions

This paper has simplified some matters and omitted consideration of significant design issues other than those central to its focus. The paper is not intended to demonstrate a definitive design
approach for steel silos.
It is hoped that this paper will provide some general understanding of steel silo behaviour and design for interested engineers and that specialist steel silo designers may find it to be provocative of discussion and perhaps robust criticism. Some will
continue to question the credibility of the Eurocode silo loading.
As has been shown, field measurements of steel silo wall deformations allowing determination of pressure ratios in flow and
shoulder zones could readily provide further proof or otherwise
as to the correctness of the Eurocode load.
It is not claimed that the silo system incorporating a single
relatively massive stiffener necessarily represents a step forward
with regard to the design of steel silos. It is suggested that steel
silo designers should accept the challenge of considering new
options for achieving more reliable and economical steel silo designs based on a solid understanding of the implications of the
Eurocode loading.

KEY REFERENCES
Durack, J. McKay, H. 2007. Implications of the new Eurocode EN1991-4
to cement and raw meal silo design. Australian Bulk Handling Review
Vol 12 Nos 2 and 3.
Durack, J. McKay, H. 2007. Measured wall movements during
discharge compared to Eurocode predictions for an inverted cone silo.
International Bulk Materials Handling Conference. University of
Newcastle.
Durack, J. 2008. Observations of the performance of existing inverted
cone silos. Bulk Materials Handling Conference, Brisbane.
Durack, J. 2008. The analysis and design of reinforced concrete silos.
20th Australian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and
Materials. University of Southern Queensland.

Contact: James Durack, email jim.durack@yahoo.com

Australian Bulk Handling Review: July/August 2010

89