THINKING2010

Silo technology
Of cones and codes
By Hugh McKay, Group Project Manager, Mining & Industrial, Aurecon

THINKING OF CONES AND CODES

Our thinking series

To review our complete series of
thinking papers, please visit our
global centre of excellence for
creativity and innovation at
www.aurecongroup.com

p2

THINKINGSILO TECHNOLOGY OF CONES AND CODES

THINKING OF CONES AND CODES

Silo technology
Of cones and codes

Loads that result from the discharge

of cement and other bulk products
from inverted cone silos have not
been well understood in the past
and this has resulted in partial or
catastrophic failures. Hugh McKay
is Aurecons Group Project Manager
Mining & Industrial Asia Pacific
and is a world-leader in the design
and assessment of bulk handling
facilities and their performance.
In this paper Hugh explores issues
relating to inverted cone silos and a
number of structural failures why
did they occur and what steps can
be taken to stop this occurring in
the future?
Inverted cone silos are not immune to
silo blockages, but strict compliance
with Eurocode 1991-4 loading
requirements confine any problems
to the past at a modest cost. Aurecon
explains how adherence can yield
benefits for silo operators.
The concept of an inverted cone silo
was first developed in the mid-1970s
and since that time, thousands of this
type of silo have been constructed.
Most inverted cone silos were
designed using loads derived from
the German code DIN1055, Australian
Standard AS3774 or the American
code ACI313.

Figure 1: non-uniform pressure resulting from

the formation of flow channels above the
discharge point. These flow channels cause
a reduction in wall pressure adjacent to the

opening, and an increased wall pressure on

either side of the flow channel, producing
severe bending moments and shears in the silo
wall 126 ICR.

While there are a number of versions,

the basic inverted cone concept
involves the construction of an upward
pointing 60 cone structure within
the silo which forces product to be
discharged around the perimeter
of the silo, adjacent to the silo wall.
This geometry guarantees eccentric
discharge which imposes highly
asymmetric loads on the silo wall
during silo operation.

THINKINGSILO TECHNOLOGY OF CONES AND CODES

p3

THINKING OF CONES AND CODES

In the past 10 years, it has become

increasingly apparent amongst
cement companies that many inverted
cone silos are exhibiting severe
structural distress. A number of
well-publicised spectacular failures
occurred such as those at Hover in
Germany and Davao in the Philippines.
More importantly, many companies
reported operational issues such as
extensive wall cracking, blockages
resulting from water ingress, lumps of
concrete breaking off inside the silo
and other such problems.
There was a general tendency to
attribute these problems to poorquality construction, particularly in
slipform construction where lack of
cover and lowstrength concrete were
often confirmed by inspection.
When released in 2005, the new
Eurocode 1991-4 radically changed
the assessment of loads on silo walls
for silos with eccentric discharge.
Concerned about the possible
shortcomings of AS3774, Aurecon
Group commenced a three-year
investigation into the performance of
inverted cone silos to gain insight into
the validity and applicability of the
new Eurocode.
Initial investigation
Aurecons initial investigation was
reported by McKay and Durack1 at the
Cemtech Conference 2006 in Rome. It
documented analytical investigations
undertaken to compare the traditional
design standards, AS3774, DIN1055
and ACI313 to Eurocode, using as a
case study, an o18m, 10,000t-capacity
inverted cone cement silo.

p4

THINKINGSILO TECHNOLOGY OF CONES AND CODES

The investigation showed that wall

hoop direction moments and shear
forces derived by AS3774 were only
around one-third of that predicted
by Eurocode. McKay and Durack
concluded that wall reinforcement
normally provided for such silos was
seriously deficient to resist both wall
moments and shear.
As can be seen in Figure 1, nonuniform pressure results from the
formation of flow channels above the
discharge point. These flow channels
cause a reduction in wall pressure
adjacent to the opening and an
increased wall pressure on either side
of the flow channel, producing severe
bending moments and shears in the
silo wall.
Measurement of silo wall deflections
Concerned by its findings, Aurecon
approached Holcim subsidiary,
Cement Australia, and sought
approval to measure wall deflections
on a 10,000t, o18m silo at Devonport.
The Devonport silo was specifically
selected because it was somewhat
unusual insofar that after filling by rail
over a period of days, the silo is fully
discharged at the rate of 600tph into
a ship. This permitted survey of an
entire discharge cycle.
The silo was instrumented with prism
targets and continuously surveyed
over one full discharge cycle of 16
hours, using high-precision surveying
techniques. The results of this work
were reported by Durack, McKay and
Davies2 at Cemtech 2007 in Prague.
Very significant wall displacements
were recorded, ranging from -15mm
to +28mm, far in excess of what

should have been occurring, based

on loads derived from AS3774. The
authors concluded that despite the
uncertainties and limitations discussed
throughout the paper, the movements
were of a similar magnitude to those
predicted by Eurocode.
Inspection and review of inverted
cone silos
Aurecon was subsequently engaged
by Cement Australia to inspect,
analyse and report on its entire
suite of inverted cone silos at plants
throughout Australia, some of which
were experiencing operational
problems, including cracking, water
ingress and blockages. Fifteen
inverted cone silos were inspected,
ranging in size from 5000-35,000t
capacity, with diameters ranging
from 14 to 30m. Silo loadings were
calculated according to Eurocode and
the design of each silo reviewed. All
but one of the silos had been designed
according to AS3774.
Aurecon concluded that:
most of the silos were significantly
overstressed according to Eurocode
despite this, many continued to
operate without significant problems
typically, silos over o20m had been
post-tensioned and these had fared
better
many of the conventionallyreinforced silos up to o18m were
exhibiting significant cracking of
cause for concern.
Aurecons report made a number of
recommendations including:
strict compliance with Eurocode on

THINKING OF CONES AND CODES

all future design of silos

system is well maintained, and the silo

has been operated strictly according
to the suppliers recommendations.
Thus, the silo has probably never
been subjected to the maximum
possible loads predicted by Eurocode.
Nevertheless, knowing what we now
know, Aurecon considers the AS3774
code deficient in determining loads on
inverted cone silos and recommends
that it should not be used in isolation
going forward.

all silos greater than o14m should be

post-tensioned
the minimum wall thickness should
be oD/60 and not less than 350mm
for post-tensioned silos
vertical reinforcement in both faces
of the wall needed to be considerably
increased, particularly in the 3m
above the cone/wall interface.
Other research

Cost ramifications

Concurrent with the work of Aurecon,

others equally concerned by the new
Eurocode were undertaking extensive
research and development.
Claudius Peters Technologies
GmbH (CPT) engineers Hilgraf and
Krause3, 4 reported some excellent
research work, and argued that a
correctly operated CPT EC silo did
not experience the maximum loads
predicted by Eurocode, due to the
size (diameter) of flow channel that
formed, and its location which barely
touched the silo wall. Despite this,
Hilgraf and Krause also recommended
that loads derived for structural
design should adhere to Eurocode.
Buschmann5 from IBAU Hamburg
similarly focused on emphasising
the need for correct operation of its
central cone silo and claimed that
aeration is configured so the flow
channels formed during emptying
do not touch the walls, or only touch
them minimally.
Ultimately, both systems involve an
inverted cone and sequential discharge
from close to the perimeter of the silo.
In our view, therefore, it is an inherent

With all the research and debate

ongoing, it was evident to Aurecon
that the cost ramifications of
Eurocode design compliance needed
to be put in perspective. Accordingly,
three silo examples were studied.

Pan United Cements 2 dual cell ring silos at

Pulau Damar Laut, Jurong Port, Singapore
September 2010 ICR 127.

feature of that geometry that

eccentric discharge must therefore
occur, and for Eurocode compliance,
the pressure distributions used for
structural design must be the same
for either system.
Buschmann correctly observes that
Cement Australias Townsville cement
silo featuring IBAU Hamburg discharge
equipment was designed by Aurecon
according to the AS3774 code, and
that it continues to operate without
problem after 16 years of service. The
reason for this is likely to be due to a
combination of factors: the silo was
post tensioned and was constructed
to a very high standard, its discharge

The first example involved two dualcell

ring silos constructed in Singapore
for Pan United Cement6. Both silos
were designed by Aurecon, the first
in 2001 in compliance with DIN1055
and AS3774 and the second in 2007,
compliant with Eurocode. Both were
constructed by Leighton Contractors
(Singapore) Pte Ltd and operate
without problems. The silo geometries
are similar but the second silo is
marginally smaller in diameter due to
site space constraints.
Using tendered rates applicable to
the 2007 silo, the costs were directly
compared. Strict application of
Eurocode resulted in:
one additional pile (o1200m bored pier)
260m3 of additional concrete in the
outer wall
20t of additional reinforcement
marginally more prestress.

THINKINGSILO TECHNOLOGY OF CONES AND CODES

p5

THINKING OF CONES AND CODES

The increased structural cost was

less than SGD200,000, representing
approximately 1.5 per cent of the civil/

30 per cent increase in wall prestress

structural cost and just 1.2 per cent of

the total silo cost.

The additional cost based on the

tendered rates was AUD860,000 or
approximately 5.6 per cent of the
structural cost and 4.4 per cent of the
total silo cost including all mechanical
and electrical supply and installation.

In the case of a dual-cell ring silo,

the presence of the inner wall limits
the pressure that can develop on the
outer wall and the size of the flow
channels that can develop. The cost
impact of Eurocode compliance is
therefore understandably minimal.
Obviously, on a single-cell silo, the
load impact of Eurocode is much
greater. Two single-cell silo scenarios
were considered:
o27m silo of 25,000t capacity
o18m silo of 10,000t capacity

eight additional piles to support the

extra weight of the thicker wall.

The second comparison related to the

10,000t silo, designed by Aurecon in
1996 in accordance with loads derived
from AS3774. Its wall design was
repeated using loads derived from
Eurocode 1991-4, with the following
findings:
a Eurocode complian t silo of o18m
requires prestressing and the wall

thickness increases from 250-350mm

(366m3 of concrete)
a slight reduction was realised in the
total reinforcing steel in the high-rise
wall (-7t)
six additional piles were required to
sustain the additional silo dead load.
Using the rates tendered in 2008 for
the adjacent 25,000t silo, the cost
premium for Eurocode compliance
for a 10,000t silo was estimated at
AUD625,000 or 9.5 per cent of the
structural cost including piling.
The major portion of the additional
cost related to the requirement for
prestressing and the resulting thicker
high rise wall and buttresses.

Both silos are located at Cement

Australias Bulwer Island plant in
Brisbane and the height of the storage
zone in both silos is virtually identical
at 42m.
The 25,000t cement silo was designed
by Aurecon in 2007 and construction
was completed in January 2009.
The silo is Eurocode compliant. To
study the cost impact of Eurocode
compliance, a comparative design was
developed based on loads derived
from Australian Standard AS3774.
The exercise revealed that Eurocode
compliance results in:
520m3 of additional concrete in the
high-rise wall
140t of additional reinforcement
in the wall, including the need to
install nearly 14,000 shear ligatures
linking the inner and outer hoop
reinforcement

p6

THINKINGSILO TECHNOLOGY OF CONES AND CODES

Cement Australias Bulwer Island plant with the 25,000t reference

silo in the foreground and the 10,000t silo behind.

THINKING OF CONES AND CODES

Conclusion

References

Many operators of inverted cone

silos experience operating difficulties
resulting from silo blockages. Market
demands often mean silos cannot be
shut down to remove blockages, so
operation continues regardless, often
resulting in loads not envisaged by the
equipment supplier.

McKAY, H and DURACK, J (2006)

Implications of the new Eurocode
EN1991-4 on the Design of Cement
and Raw Meal Storage Silos. Cemtech
Conference, Rome.

Many of the silos inspected by

Aurecon in Australia, New Zealand,
Indonesia and the Philippines
exhibited significant cracking, internal
spalling and water ingress. Certainly,
some of these problems may have
been attributable to poor quality
construction, but in the case of
the Australian silos inspected, that
was generally not the root cause of
problems.
It was very evident to Aurecon that
previously well-accepted loading
codes, DIN1055, AS3774 and ACI1313
were deficient in the way they dealt
with eccentric discharge and this has
potentially left the cement industry
with a significant problem. However,
uncompromising compliance with
Eurocode loading requirements in
future designs will eliminate many of
the currently experienced problems.
Depending on the size and type of
inverted cone silo (single, dual or
multicell), the structural cost impact
for this compliance ranges from as
little as 1.5 per cent for dual-cell ring
silos to a maximum of around 9.5 per
cent for the smaller single-cell silos
(o<20m and not previously posttensioned).

DURACK, J, McKAY, H and DAVIES,

N (2007) Measured Wall Movement
during Discharge Compared to
Predictions for an Inverted Cone Silo.
Cemtech Conference, Prague.
2

HILGRAF, P and KRAUSE, I (2007)

Improvement of Process Technology
to Reduce Static Loads on Cone
Silos. IEEE/ IAS/PCA Conference,
Charleston, SC.

HILGRAF, P and KRAUSE, I (2007)

Process Technology and Static
Loads for Cone Silos. In: Cement
International, 5.

B USCHMANN, H (2009) Townsville

Cement Silo. In: International Cement
Review, October.
5

McKAY, H (2010) New silo for United

Cement. In: International Cement
Review, January.
6

Hugh McKay
Group Project
Manager
Mining & Industrial
mckayh@ap.aurecongroup.com

THINKINGSILO TECHNOLOGY OF CONES AND CODES

p7

Aurecon provides engineering, management and specialist technical services for public and private sector clients globally. We have provided world-class
technical expertise and innovative solutions on projects in over 70 countries across Africa, Asia Pacific and the Middle East. Formed through the merger of
three leading engineering consultancies, Africon, Connell Wagner and Ninham Shand, Aurecon has over 6000 professionals offering in-depth local market
knowledge combined with international expertise. We seek to foster human achievement in all aspects of our work.
Aurecon offices are located in:
Angola, Australia, Bahrain, Botswana, China, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines,
Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam.
For more information please visit www.aurecongroup.com
2010 Aurecon
The Aurecon Group is made up of a number of separate legal entities operating across diverse jurisdictions. Not all those entities provide services to clients.