Simulation of the Actions in Silo and Tanks

with the Smooth Particles Hydrodynamics Method

presented by

Arcangelo SCHENA - manager

CIMES sarl
360 rue Marc Lefrancq
Les Ateliers Numeriques
59300 Valenciennes – France
Tel. : 0033 (0)327416271
E-mail : arcangelo.schena@cimesfrance.com
http://www.cimesfrance.com

EHTC - 1 October 2008

CIMES has built up its reputation by capitalizing on its experience in handling
innovative projects and dealing with technologie challenges (channel tunnel,
high-speed trains, composites, etc ...)‫‏‬.
It provides services for major industrial fields and companies with its know-how in
advanced numerical simulation and the skills of specialists experienced in the use of
cutting-edge tools.

SECTORS of ACTIVITY : Railway (passenger transport and freight), Industry, Aeronautic

FEA softwares :
Implicit analysis : ANSYS, NASTRAN, RADIOSS bulk and OPTISTRUCT
Explicit calculation : RADIOSS block and LS-DYNA
CFD calculation : ANSYS CFX
Pre and post processing : HYPERWORKS PRODUCTS

FIELDS OF COMPETENCE :
Linear and non-linear static analysis (plasticity, creep, ...)‫‏‬
Dynamic analysis : modal, crash, sloshing, ALE, SPH, explosion ...
Fatigue analysis: mono and multiaxial loads
Random vibrations (PSD)‫‏‬
Stationary and transient thermic analysis

SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION of the HYPERWORKS products since 2007

TGV3G new seat design by Christian Lacroix
Simulation of the behavior of a double seat in the event of crash – courtesy of COMPIN and SNCF
 EXAMPLE 1

Prediction of loads in silos due to the stored

material at rest condition
3-Dimensional modelling of granular material in silos and
resulting loads at rest conditions
Common design practice vs. SPH method

The structural analysis of a cylindrical steel silo is carried out by firstly using
the common practice approach based on the design values of the European
standard EC1, and secondly by using the meshless numerical method SPH.
The results predicted by both approach such as pressures on silo walls are
compared and discussed.
Objective and scope of the study
According to the most existing standards the silos wall loads are still based on the analytical slice
model of Janssen (1895). This simplified model can only be used to estimate the wall pressures at
rest conditions and symmetric cross-section.

To overcome these limitations and to allow for pressure variations during filling and discharge, it
is a common design practice to multiply the uniform static pressures due to Janssen by empirical
overpressure factors derived from experimental data.

But these practical rules are often too conservatives and lead to an uneconomical and not
necessarily safe design of silos.

In order to improve the structural analysis of the silos an alternative approach must be used
instead of the simplified design rules from standards. The interaction between the silo walls and
the bulk solid as well as the nonlinear behaviour of the granular material must be considered.

The main purpose of this study is to analyse the capabilities of the SPH method to simulate the
bulk solids behaviour and to predict the silo loads.

 Can the SPH method be a useful engineering tool to design silos ?

Silo geometry and parameters

Tested model :
- Cylindrical steel silo
- Conical hopper
- Centric outlet
- Wall thickness : 2 mm
- E = 210 GPa, ν = 0.3
- Steel grade S235
 Common practice approach
- Determination of silo wall pressures from
stored material according to standards (e.g.
EC1 Part 4).
Material modelling with SPH method
- The bulk solid is explicitly modelled using SPH
particles
- Constitutive model attached to the particles :
Drucker-Prager elastoplastic criteria is used
- Contact simulation : sliding interface (type 7)

Finite element model

of the silo with surface
loads on elements SPH cells for the
granular material

Deformable finite
element model of the
silo

-The silo is discretised via shell elements

(25x25mm), and the actions is implemented
by surface loads on elements. The
commercial FE software Ansys is used.

(The same finite element mesh of the silo structure is used in both approaches in order to simplify
the comparison between both method)
Silo wall pressures (design values according to EC1 Part 4)

Loads on slopping walls of the

Wall pressures on the vertical conical hopper (end of filling)
sided section (end of filling)
Results : wall normal pressures comparison at rest condition

Wall normal pressure on Wall normal pressure on

the vertical sided section slopping walls of the hopper
Results : stresses comparison at rest condition

σmax=39.1 MPa σmax=37.7 MPa

at the transition at the transition

Contour plot of Equivalent Contour plot of Equivalent

Von Mises stresses Von Mises stresses
calculated by SPH method calculated from design
values
Results : contour plot of displacement within the material at end of
filling
Conclusions

As a first stage of evaluation of the SPH method, only the resulting loads from the
stored material at rest were studied. Based on the numerical results the following
observations can be made :

Significant differences can be noted between the two approaches in the pattern of pressures and
especially in the magnitude. For instance, the analytical value of the horizontal pressure given by
EC standard is of 7 kPa at the transition, while the mean value obtained from the SPH method
reaches approximately 12 kPa at the same location.

Globally, the values calculated using the SPH method are greater than expected. Indeed, the
values of the EC standard are very conservative as experimental data and many numerical
analyses have highlighted in recent journal publications.

The differences observed can probably be explained by the choice of the parameters of the
constitutive law that has a great influence on the results, and in other hand by the deformability of
the walls that modifies the pressure distribution.

These latest points must be part of further investigations. The logical progression of these
analyses will be to used this method to simulate the complex behaviour of the bulk material during
filling and discharge processes.
 EXAMPLE 2
Sloshing inside a freight tank wagon
according to the railway RP17 and the EN 12663-2 standards
RP17 and EN12663-2 standards :
Buffing impact tests on dangerous loaded wagons are carried out in order to
test the effect of the load on the structure and particularly on the end faces and
the connection between the underframe and the tank

Implementation : the single test wagon, not braked, is impacted by an

another wagon loaded to a total weight of 80 tonnes

The tests are conducted at increasing speeds up to 12 km/h

The tests-results obtained for wagons shall satisfy the following conditions :
- the cumulative residual strains after impacts should be less than 2‰
- variations of the mains dimensions should not impair the operating

The numerical simulations are carried out with Radioss block revision 9.0
- WinCCS2003 SMPD version
- calculations run on 4 cores
V=12km/h
Test wagon : 90 t
Impact wagon : 80 t buffers
Test freight wagon
Mass = 21 170 kg
Materials : S355J2N for the main vehicle structure and P265NJ2 for the
tank. The steel parts are modelled using elasto-plastic model
(law 36 : elastic plastic piecewise linear material)‫‏‬
Butyl buffers : Category A – with a minimum stoke of 105mm
Impact velocity : 3.55 mm/ms (12km/h)‫‏‬
Meshed with 25x25mm shell elements - 374 117 deformable elements

Impact wagon
Mass = 80 000 kg

Bogies Y25 Lsd 1

Mass = 2 x 4650 kg - the bogies are modelled using rigid bodies

Load
For the physical tests the wagon is loaded with water : 54 tonnes
The water is modelled using SPH particles and a Hydrodynamic viscous
fluid law (law 6)
 Test wagon
- mass = 21 170 kg
- 374 117 deformable shell and solid elements (half model)
- materials : S355J2N steel for the underframe and the connection with the tank
P295NJ2 steel for the tank

speed test
v=12 km/h

bogies Y25 Lsd 1

- rigid bodies
- mass = 2x 4650 kg

Tank wagon model for sloshing analysis

end face mesh and connection
between the underframe and the
tank

butyl buffer of the impact wagon

mass = 80 000 kg imposed by
concentrated mass elements bogie Y25
 contact interface between the tank (shell finite elements)
and the water (SPH cells) is modelled using a sliding interface (type 7)‫‏‏‬

butyl buffer of
water mesh : the test wagon
- mass = 54 tonnes
- 228 495 SPH cells
- smoothong lengh "h0" equal to 55 mm
- mass of each particle = 120 gr
- 50mm between each particle
- Reference density = 0.001 gr/mm3
- liquid EOS = 2200 N/mm2 liquid bulk modulus
- SPH symmetry condition
 Simulation results

The simulation results are compared to the experimental data with regard to the
compressive force on the buffers, acceleration of the vehicle and stresses
ouputs on the connection between the underframe and the tank.
Kinematic of the sloshing test
 Force on the buffer of the test wagon and interaction force between the water and the tank

Force on the test buffer : Force between water and tank :

- numerical simulation : 1234 kN for a stoke of 85 667 kN
mm
-> acceleration of the water γ=25m/s2
- experimental data : 1285 kN
Acceleration of the test wagon

acceleration of the test wagon

γ=80m/s2
Plan of strain gauges of the critical area

gauges 1, 2, 3 and 4

gauges 13 and 14

Connection between the underframe and the tank

 Virtual results versus experimental data

Numerical data Experimental data

longitudinal acceleration of the wagon 80 m/s2 81 m/s2

force on the buffer 1234 kN 1285 kN
acceleration of the water 25 m/s2 -
stress for gauge n°1 101 MPa 106 MPa
stress for gauge n°2 148 MPa 50 MPa
stress for gauge n°3 84 MPa 29 MPa
stress for gauge n°4 68 MPa 21 MPa
stress for gauge n°13 59 MPa 50 MPa
stress for gauge n°14 56 MPa 89 MPa

Conclusions :

The numerical results show that the SPH approach are very close to the experimental test results,
so the simulation with SPH method obtained represent correctly the physical problem
of sloshing tank wagon.

The SPH method is simple to mesh complex volums …

but difficulties for measuring contact pressure between fluid and structure (higher peak force).