Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

DISCUSSION

Bin Supports—A Caution to Designers


Paper by JAY P. MOORE
(1st Quarter, 1985)

Discussion by German Gurfinkel


JVIoore pointed out a problem usually ignored by designers analysis would have called for the columns to share the load
of bin supports. An erroneous assumption is made that all equally, at 0.16 W; actually, two of the columns were
columns holding overhead tanks are loaded equally by subjected to 2.3 times as much load. For the tank in ques-
virtue of symmetry, and regardless of the fact the columns tion, neither the columns nor the supporting beams failed.
themselves could be supported rigidly, or by flexible However, the tank itself toppled over soon after its corru-
beams, or by a combination of both systems. That the gated shell developed intense local buckhng ("recorruga-
equal-load assumption is not always the case was clearly tion'') in a second ring stave, in an area situated just above
shown by Moore. That the results of such analytical folly the end of one of the overloaded columns.
can be disastrous was made clear to the writer as he investi- Collapse of the tank was a direct consequence of faulty
gated the collapse of an overhead corrugated-steel tank in design; a thin-corrugated cylindrical shell, which is well
Illinois in 1983.
The tank was supported as shown in Fig. 1 by six columns
bearing on flexible steel beams and extending only into the
first ring of staves of the corrugated shell. Because of sym-
metry, the total weight of the tank and its contents W was
resisted by two sets of columns. One set consisted of two
columns bearing on the two transverse beams, and each
supporting a load P^ (see Fig. 2). The other set consisted of
four columns bearing on the two longitudinal beams, and
each supporting a load P2. Vertical equilibrium requires
that W = 2 Pi +4/^2- Also, the deflection under each
column support must be equal, i.e., 81 = 82. This is a
consequence of the major stiffness of the non-corrugated
suspended hopper, to which all six columns are attached
(see Fig. 3). Estabhshing the expressions for 81 and 82 in
terms of F,, P2, E, I, L^ and L2 (lengths of beams) and
solving, yields: Pi - 0.381 W and P2 = 0.0595 W. It is
noted the WIO x 33 supporting beams remained elastic
for the weight of the full tank, W = 62 K (for which
Fi = 23.6 K and P2 = 3.7 K), thus validating the analyt-
ical solution.
Results indicate the columns supported by the short-span
beam carried 76% of the total weight, while the other four
columns together carried only 24% of the weight. Careless

German Gurfinkel is Professor of Civil Engineering, University of


Illinois-Urbana-Cfiampaign and Registered Structural En-
gineer. 1. View from above of9-ft. D x 16-ft. H replacement tank.
Note columns resting on grid of beams.

70 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION


PLAN

Exist. Cols. (4)

CVJ
^lO A
WI0x33 "^v
Q_ 1
.' X
WI0x33- WI0x33
/ "lO
CJ
Tank \ CvJ
CsJ
Columns (6) -> \ CL
'
Jr2 £
o
9 D x l 6 H ^ l\
Overhead ^ I OQ
_f\l
Tank / ()
lO o
W = 62''Full| ^ CO c
_l •D
3

CM c
Q- o
*p. P2. y
1

\ If)

-S^ CO
CL f
I

AWI0x33 '^
f
L
i^-

L|=779 n
Transverse Beam -^
Fi^. 2. Plan of overhead tank supported on flexible beams. Free-
body diagrams of transverse and longitudinal beams.

known for its sensitivity to meridional compressive loads,


should not have been supported on columns that extended
so Httle into the shell. Indirect cause of the tank collapse
was attributed to overstressing generated by supporting the
tank columns on beams of different flexibility.
An identical tank with columns extending all the way to
the tank eaves was erected later on the same beams that Fig. 3. Side view of9-ft D x 16-ft H replacement tank. Note cor-
supported the failed tank (see Figs. 1 and 3), and has been rugated shell is supported by six columns extending to
in use since then without any apparent problems. Although eaves. At original tank, columns only extended into first
ring of corrugated staves.
the load distribution in the supporting columns is still highly
uneven, and objectionable to this writer, the corrugated
shell is presently meridionally stiffened and, thus, better
capable of resisting these effects. Note that had the owner's flexible beams, will only cause actual overloading in the
engineer insisted on an equal distribution of loads between less-flexible beams and the rigid supports. They will be-
supporting columns this would have theoretically required come "hard points." The columns and portions of tank
the £ / o f the long beams were 6.7 times larger than the Eloi shell which are directly supported at these hard points wifl
the short beams. There are other practical ways of achiev- also be loaded well beyond the erroneous assumption made
ing, if not equahty, at least a small difference between loads in the design. Because columns and thin shells are so sensi-
Pi and P2. tive to instability, the consequences of this error may range
To summarize, it is likely any designer who assumes between simple overstressing, in the best of cases, and
equal distribution of column loads, on tanks supported by structural collapse.

SECOND QUARTER / 1986 71

S-ar putea să vă placă și