VII.

Investigation of Failure
For this analysis we have taken a factor of 30% indicating that 70% of the gravity loads of
the material stored in the bins would be directly transferred through the walls of the bins to
the four supporting columns (W8x40) directly, and only 30% of the loads would be
transferred through the bottom hopper to the trusses. The distribution between the frictional
force and the net vertical force was estimated using the Janssen's method which is well
recognized by the industry for the design of bins for storing granular materials.
As the facility is believed to have been constructed during 1972-1974, the grade of steel for
all wide flange shapes and plates was assumed to be ASTM A-36. The sizes of the top and
bottom chords, diagonals, verticals, and the stiffened beam connections were field-
measured, as shown in Figure 86. The top and bottom chords were W6x15. Diagonals and
verticals were W6x20. The four primary columns over the top of concrete columns were
W8x40. The steel bins were constructed with " steel plates welded together with stiffeners
and corner angles. The bins had two layers of roof plates 6" apart, also consisting of "
plates. It was estimated that an additional load of 20,000 pounds consisting of distributor,
platforms, drag conveyors, etc. were imposed on the bins, but were directly transferred to
the four corner columns. The trusses were assumed not to share any load coming from the
roof of the bins. It is noteworthy that the bins were many times stiffer than the trusses, and
they would receive a much greater share of the loads than the trusses.
For the purpose of analysis, limestone was regarded as weighing 90 pcf, and the rice hulls as
20 pcf.
Two models were created to assess the stresses in different members of the trusses under
different loading conditions. The first model provided the forces imposed on the stiffened
seated connection by the east and west trusses at the north and south ends, and the second
model provided the forces and stresses in the truss members. The first model more
accurately reflected the existing framing conditions at the stiffened seat connection.
Analyses were done under the Load Resistance and Factored Design (LRFD), and under
Allowable Stress Design (ASD). Under the LRFD, no increase in loads was assumed by using
a load factor of 1.0, and no capacity reduction was taken by using the phi factor as 1.0. The
intent under the LRFD evaluation was to compute the failure load at which a collapse could
occur. ASD evaluations provided the usual factors of safety in accord with the industry
practice. A finite element analysis and hand computations were performed to compute the
load that the stiffened seat connection could carry. Three dimensional views of the two
models, and the finite element plate analysis are shown below.

Figure 90 STAAD MODEL 2 (left); Figure 91 - STAAD MODEL 1 (right)

Figure 92 Elevation (Finite element model) Figure 93 Elevation (Seated beam
connection of the east and west truss)

Figure 94 Finite element model Figure 95 Intact column base plate

Figure 96 Typical hopper Figure 97 NE corner column lying in bin No. 1

Figure 98 Fracture of NE corner column at 3rd floor Figure 99 NE corner column showing inadequate lap

splice

Figure 100 Interior trusses lying in debris Figure 101 Interior trusses being retrieved

Figure 102 Exterior truss after being retrieved

The analysis was conducted using the following criteria:

1. The steel conformed to ASTM A-36, as the bins were constructed around 1972 at
which time high strength steel was just beginning to emerge into the market,
although at a premium price, and was generally not used in conventional framing
until the 1980s.

2. The structure was analyzed under the Load Resistance Factored Design (LRFD) code
established by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC); except the load
factor and the capacity reduction factors were assumed as 1.0 to eliminate any
factor of safety.

3. The structure was also analyzed using Allowable Stress Method with the usual factors
of safety.

4. No allowance for any corrosion was provided.

5. The bins were constructed with " thick steel plate, and reinforced with horizontal
stiffeners of unequal 5x3x" steel angles at 4'-0" on centers vertically.
6. The hopper (aka cone) was an integral part of the bins, and they were supported over
steel beams on all four sides.

7. Regardless of the quantity of the material in the bins, the hoppers were assumed to
be full.

8. Scales, mixers, and conveyor belts below the hoppers were supported independently
of the bins and hoppers, and had their own supporting structure.

9. The truss members were field-measured and generally were comprised of W6x15
except for the diagonals and vertical members which were W6x20. The four corner
steel columns conformed to W8x40. The cross bracings in the trusses were
comprised of steel angles 3x3x".

10.Rice hulls weighed 20 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).

11.There were two types of limestone powder stored in the bins, PureCal from Cerne
Calcium Company of Fort Dodge, IA weighing 95 pcf, and Unical from Cilc Resources
of Urbandale, IA weighing 84 to 92 pcf. For the analysis, 90pcf has been taken for all
limestone.

12.Dry Distilled Grain (DDG), aka Solulac, weighed 20 pcf similar to the rice hulls.

13.Bin 9 was partitioned into two equal bins, but contained the same material in both
parts but of varying quantities.

14.At the time of collapse, the loads in the bins were as follows:

o Bins 1,3 and 7 combined approximately 375,000 pounds (Each bin assumed to
carry approximately 125,000 pounds)

o Bin 2: 33,000 pounds

o Bin 4: 30,000 pounds

o Bin 5: 28,000 pounds

o Bin 6: 20,000 pounds

o Bin 8: 26,000 pounds

o Bin 9: 87,000 pounds

A three-dimensional frame analysis was conducted to determine the stresses in the bin
supporting frame under varying load conditions. The following are the 24 different cases
considered in the analyses.

1. Case 1: To determine whether the existing structure could support limestone in the
four corner bins, and rice hulls in the remaining five bins under LRFD method (no
factor of safety) using model No.1. All bins were assumed to be filled up to 85% of
the capacity. Absence of factor of safety is a violation of industry standards.

Result: All truss members passed but the seated beam connections failed.

2. Case 2: Same as Case No.1 but using model No. 2. Again no factor of safety.

Result: All truss members passed but the seated connections failed

3. Case 3: To determine whether the existing structure could safely support limestone in
four corner bins, and rice hulls in the remaining five bins with the required factor of
safety (using ASD method), as per industry standards, using model No.1. All bins
were filled up to 85% of capacity.

Result: Truss members failed and connections also failed

4. Case 4: Same as Case 3 but using model No. 2.

Result: Truss members failed. All connections also failed.

5. Case 5: To determine whether the existing structure could support rice hulls in all
nine bins under LRFD (no factor of safety) using model No.1. All bins were filled up to
85% of capacity.

Result: All members and connections passed.

6. Case 6: Same as Case 5 but using model No. 2.

Result: All members and connections passed.

7. Case 7: Same as Case 5 but with the required factor of safety (using ASD method)
using model No.1

Result: All members and connections passed.

8. Case 8: Same as Case 7 but using model No. 2.

Result: All members and connections passed.

9. Case 9: To determine whether the existing structure could support the loads of the
material believed to be in the bins at the time of collapse using LRFD method
(without any required factor of safety) using model No. 1.

Result: All members passed but the connections failed.

10.Case 10: Same as Case 9 but using model No. 2.

 Result: All members passed but connections failed.

11.Case 11: Same as Case 9 but with the required factor of safety (using ASD method)
using model No. 1

Result: All members passed but connections failed.

12.Case 12: Same as case 11 but using model No. 2

Result: All members passed but connections failed.

13.Case 13: To determine whether the existing structure could support four corner bins
filled with limestone up to 65% of the capacity with the rest of the five bins filled with
rice hulls up to 85% of the capacity using LRFD method (without any factor of safety)
using model No. 1.

Result: All members passed but the connections failed.

14.Case 14: Same as Case 13 but using model No. 2

Result: All members passed but the connections failed.

15.Case 15: Same as Case 13 but with the required factor of safety using (using ASD
method) model No. 1.

Result: All members passed but the connections failed

16.Case 16: Same as Case 15 but using model No. 2

Result: All members passed but the connections failed.

17.Case 17: To determine whether the existing structure could support limestone in two
corner bins filled up to 85% capacity with the rest of the bin filled with rice hulls up to
85% capacity using LRFD method (without any factor of safety) using model No. 1

Result: All members passed, and the connections barely passed.

18.Case 18: Same as Case 17 but using model No. 2

Result: All members passed, and the connections barely passed.

19.Same as Case17 but with the required factor of safety (using ASD method) using
model No.1

Result: All members pass but the connections fail.

20.Same as case 19 but using model No. 2.

Result: All members passed but the connections failed.

21.To determine whether the four corner bins could support lime stone filled up to 55%
of the capacity with the rest of the bins filled with rice hulls up to 85% of capacity
using LRFD method (without any factor of safety) using model No. 1.
 Result: All members and connection passed.

22.Same as Case 21 but using model No. 2.

Result: All members and connections passed

23.To determine whether the existing structure could support lime stone in the four
corner bins filled up to 20% of the capacity with the rest of the bins filled with rice
hulls up to 85% of the capacity using ASD method (with the required factor of safety)
using model No. 1.

Result: All members and connections passed.

24.Same as Case 23 but using model No. 2.

Result: All members and connections passed.

Above analyses' results are summarized in Table 1 on next page.

TABLE 1

Summary of the analyses results of the bin supporting truss structure

No. of Rest
corne of ASD or Seated
STAAD No. of r bins Bins Load % of RH LRFD Truss beam
FILE support with with coefficien height LS den metho result connectio
# No. s LS RH t fill density sity d s n

1 1 Model 1 4 5 0.3 85% LS 90 20 LRFD Pass Fails

85% RH

2 1A Model 2 4 5 0.3 85% LS 90 20 LRFD Pass Fails

85% RH

3 3 Model 1 4 5 0.3 85% LS 90 20 ASD Fails Fails

85% RH

4 3A Model 2 4 5 0.3 85% LS 90 20 ASD Fails Fails

85% RH

5 2 Model 1 0 9 0.3 85% RH No 20 LRFD Pass Pass

limeston
 TABLE 1

Summary of the analyses results of the bin supporting truss structure

No. of Rest
corne of ASD or Seated
STAAD No. of r bins Bins Load % of RH LRFD Truss beam
FILE support with with coefficien height LS den metho result connectio
# No. s LS RH t fill density sity d s n

6 2A Model 2 0 9 0.3 85% RH No 20 LRFD Pass Pass

limeston
e

7 4 Model 1 0 9 0.3 85% RH No 20 ASD Pass Pass

limeston
e

8 4A Model 2 0 9 0.3 85% RH No 20 ASD Pass Pass

limeston
e

9 5 Model 1 4 5 0.3 Actual 90 20 LFRD Pass Fails

loads

10 5C Model 2 4 5 0.3 Actual 90 20 LFRD Pass Fails

loads

11 5B Model 1 4 5 0.3 Actual 90 20 ASD Pass Fails

loads

12 5A Model 2 4 5 0.3 Actual 90 20 ASD Pass Fails

loads

13 6 Model 1 4 5 0.3 65% LS 90 20 LRFD Pass Fails

85%RH

14 6A Model 2 4 5 0.3 65% LS 90 20 LRFD Pass Fails

85%RH

15 7 Model 1 4 5 0.3 65% LS 90 20 ASD Pass Fails

85%RH

16 7A Model 2 4 5 0.3 65% LS 90 20 ASD Pass Fail

85%RH

17 8 Model 1 2 bins 7 0.3 85% LS 90 20 LRFD Pass Barely

at NE 85% RH passes
 TABLE 1

Summary of the analyses results of the bin supporting truss structure

No. of Rest
corne of ASD or Seated
STAAD No. of r bins Bins Load % of RH LRFD Truss beam
FILE support with with coefficien height LS den metho result connectio
# No. s LS RH t fill density sity d s n

& SW

18 8A Model 2 2 bins 7 0.3 85% LS 90 20 LRFD Pass Barely

at NE 85% RH passes
& SW

19 9 Model 1 2 bins 7 0.3 85% LS 90 20 ASD Pass Fails

at NE 85% RH
& SW

20 9A Model 2 2 bins 7 0.3 85% LS 90 20 ASD Pass Fails

at NE 85% RH
& SW

21 10 Model 1 4 5 0.3 55% LS 90 20 LRFD Pass Pass

85% RH

22 10A Model 2 4 5 0.3 55% LS 90 20 LRFD Pass Pass

85% RH

23 11 Model 1 4 5 0.3 20% LS 90 20 ASD Pass Pass

85% RH

24 11A Model 2 4 5 0.3 20% LS 90 20 ASD Pass Pass

85% RH
Note: Model 1 is generated with 8 support condition to determine forces at the seated beam connections and
to determine truss member forces. Model 2 is generated with 4 supports condition to compare forces in the
truss members and seat beam connections with Model 1.

The weakest link in the structure was the four stiffened seated connections of the top chords
of the east and west trusses at each end. The bottom flanges of the top chords of the east
and west exterior trusses, W6x15, were bolted with four bolts to the " cap plate of the
corner column projecting beyond the column flanges. The cap plate was welded to the
column. A stiffener plate " thick was provided underneath the cap plate. The seated
connection was subjected to a vertical load coming from the east and west trusses and a
horizontal force equivalent to the compressive force in the truss top chords. Both the vertical
and horizontal forces created eccentricity on the connection, and it was determined that a
single stiffener plate would overstress the seated connection to failure. If either a north or
south connection was provided with a sliding joint to relieve the horizontal force, the
connection with only one stiffener plate would have been able to resist the loads
satisfactorily. Alternatively, if two stiffener plates were provided as was done in the cases of
the interior trusses, the stresses would be satisfactory. As stated earlier, all four stiffened
seated connections failed.