Powder Technology.
19 (1978) 243 - 254
@ Elsevier Sequoia S-A.. Lausanne - Printed in the Netherlands
Stress Distribution in Hoppers
R. M. HORNE* and R. M. NEDDEmlAN
Department of Chemical Engineering. Cambridge Uniuersity. Pembroke
(Received July 18.1977; in revised form September
SUMhL4RY
The method of characteristics, used in a
previous paper [l] to calculate limiting stress
distributions in granular material in two-
dimensional vertical-sided bins, is extended
to similar problems in two-dimensional
hoppers. Under normal conditions, a continu-
ous solution arises in the active case and a dis-
continuous one in the passive case.
The e_xistence of Jenike’s radial stress field
at the apex [Z] is considered and comparisons
are made with the exact solution developed
here to investigate the distance over which the
radial stress field is valid. It is found that in
the active state the exact solution approaches
the radial stress field very slowly, so that the
latter is valid only in the immediate vicinity
of the apex. In the passive case a saw-tooth
stress distribution is found, unlike the con-
tinuous distribution predicted by the radial
stress field- The latter does, however, give a
good average value-
Wall stresses given by the present method
are compared with those predicted by the
approximate methods of Walker [3], Walters
[lo] and Enstad [ 111 _ Substantial agreement
is found in the active state, but the discon-
tinuous solutions found in the passive state
differ markedly from the continuous soiution
predicted by the appro_ximate methods-
1. INTRODUCTION
In a previous paper [l], the analysis of
stresses in two-dimensional bins of granular
material was carried out by the method of
characteristics. In the present paper, the
*present address: Agricultural Division, Imperial
Chemical Industries Ltd., Billingham, Gt. Britain.
243
Street. Cambridge CBB 3RA (Gt. Britain)
19.1977)
method is extended to cover both active and
passive two-dimensional hoppers (i.e. bunkers
with converging sides).
A ‘knowledge of the stress distribution in
hoppers is important in their design. Perhaps
the most common design procedure is that of
Jenike [2], and his method of predicting the
minimum size of outlet to prevent arching
requires an accurate estimate of the stresses.
He assumes the distribution near the apex is
of the radial stress field form, that is to say
that the magnitudes of the stress components
are directly proportional to the radial coordi-
nate so that p/r and 6 are functions of angular
coordinate only. Walker’s modification of his
method [3] employs a stress field based on
the differential slice analysis first used by
Janssen [4] for bins. Both these analyses re-
quire assumptions additional to those used to
set up the limiting, static equilibrium equa-
tions for which the method of characteristics
provides an exact solution. It would thus
seem worthwhile comparing results by the
various methods to see how much in error the
approximate solutions are.
Some method of characteristics calcula-
tions in passive hoppers have been carried out
by Johanson and Jenike 153 and Johanson
[6], although few details are given. They
chose, however, to adjust artificially the
boundary conditions near the top surface so
that &continuities in the stress field are not
generated. Their results for this restrictive set
of conditions showed that the stresses con-
verged to those given by the radial stress field
well before the apex.
2. OUTLLNE OF SOLUTION
A brief account of the derivation of the
characteristic equations and details of the
244
Fig. 1. (2) Tso-dimensional hopperof half-anglefl;
(b) Mohr circle for streses at 2 point on the right-
hand wall. Points 1 2nd 2 represent the wall plane
stresses in the active 2nd pasive states respectively.
Points IV and 2V refer to the corresponding vertical
planes.
numericaI method of soIution are given in our
earlier paper [l] _ A fuller description of most
aspects is contained in Sokolovskii’s book [7].
The top surface and centre-line boundary
conditions for the hopper are the same as
those in the corresponding bin problem. The
only difference between the probIems then
lies in the wall boundary conditions. For the
system of axes shown, the right-hand wall of
the hopper iIIustrated in Fig. l(a) is defined by
x=ytan9 (1)
where ,O_is the hopper half-angle. From a
MO-hr circl? (Fig_ l(b)) for the stresses at a
point on the right-hand wall, the anticlock-
wise rotation, 0, of the major principal stress
direction from the x axis is given, for a
cohesionless blohr-Coulomb material, by
Active St&e:
e =ir/2+(w -&)/z-n (2a)
Passive state:
6 =Tr-(w -&)/Z-Q (2b)
where &,, is the angle of wall friction and
sin w = sin o,/sin 0, where 0 is the angle of
internal friction.
As explained in the previous paper Cl], the
divergence or convergence of characteristics
from the top comer determines whether a
continuous or discontinuous solution results
there_ For a bin (0 = 0) in the active state,
0 =oP = ;r/2 < 8, and the characteristics diverge
(or are parallel). When the hopper half-angle,
fi, is increased and consequently 8 W is de-
creased beyond the value for which 8 top = 0 =,
a discontinuous solution results. As the wall
is rotated still further, the slope of the dis-
continuity decreases_ However, this decrease
is less than the increase in Z2 and eventually
the wall and the discontinuity become coin-
cident_ For larger Q than this, the caIculated
discontinuity position is outside the hopper
and a limiting stress solution cannot be found.
Sokolovskii [7] has determined the ranges of
solution and they are given by:
Continuous:
cl< I? G (w -&&?)/2 (3)
Discontinucusr
(w - 0,)/2 < R G ir/2 - (0 + &)/2 (4)
Non-limiting:
ir/2 - (0 + &)/2 < 52 (5)
It is worth noting that for a fully rough-
walled hopper (0, = Q), the discontinuous
range vanishes.
A similar analysis for passive hoppers can
be carried out. For the bin (a = 0), BLop=
is > 8, and a discontinuous solution exists
escept in the smooth-wall case. Thus there
is no finite range of 9, and SL for the con-
tinuous solution and we need consider only
the upper limit on fi for discontinuous
solutions. Using the same argument as for
the active case, there is the possibility that
the wall and the discontinuity become coin-
cident- However, there is another way for the
discontinuous solution at the top comer to
fail. Since the slope of the discontinuity falls
as SL increases, it might eventually happen
that the discontinuity and the top surface
become coincident. For a Iarger SLthan this,
 245

the calculated position of the discontinuity

is above the top surface - once again a
limiting solution cannot exist. The smaller of
the two limits is obviously the applicable one.
For the passive hopper it is the second
criterion which gives the required limit. The
ranges of solution are then given by:
Continuous:
Q-0, o,=o (6)
Discontinuous:
OG K2s n/2-(&J +4,)/2 (7)
Non-limiting:
0. > z/2 -(w + 9,)/2 (8)

It is found that if a limiting solution exists

at the top comer, then it exists everywhere
in the hopper, at least in the case where 0,
ow and ,O_ are constant throughout the
bunker. This conclusion is not generally true
if a non-horizontal top surface is considered.
and a detailed analysis of solutions under this
condition has been carried out by Home [S] .
We have now established that the only
limiting stress solution in the passive hopper
is of the discontinuous type, as in the passive
bin problem [l] _ In the active case, the stress
field may be continuous or discontinuous_
However, the latter which occurs at larger ~2
values will be seen later to correspond to
stresses becoming infinite at the apex - an
unrealistic result. Thus only the continuous
solution type, as occurred in the bin problem,
need be considered_
Because of the tendency of material to
move downwards and inwards in a hopper
which is discharging, and to a lesser extent on
fll;kg, due to consolidation as filling
proceeds, the active state is unlikely ever to
be formed- Nevertheless, it is important to
study the solutions for active hoppers because
of the light this throws upon the relationship
between the fully plastic solution derived by
the method of characteristics and other solu-
tions such as the radial stress field at the apex.
Figure 2 shows a typical pattern of charac-
t&stics and &continuities for material in the
passive state_ It is very similar to that for the
passive bin [l] and is calculated in the same
manner, the only difference being that the
boundary condition 6 = constant on x =
constant is replaced by 8 = constant on x =
Fig. 2. Pattern of characteristics and discontinuities in
a passive hopper with wall stress plotted alongside;
L-2= IQ”, 0 = 30’, Qw = 25”. Heavy lines are discon-
tinuities; thin lines are characteristics.
y tan ,O__ Plotted alongside is the variation of
wall normal stress with distance along the
wall. It can be seen from the pattern of dis-
continuities that it is impossible to extend the
numerical calculation to the apex, although it
can be extended to within any specified
distance from the apex. That is, of course, a
limitation only in theoretical considerations
since the outlet on an actual hopper will be
some distance above its virtual apex.
It can also be seen both from the diagg
and from the actual numerical solution that,
below the first couple of discontinuities, the
shapes of corresponding discontinuities do
not change much with distance from the
apex, Le. ) along any radius from tile apex, the
discontinuities have the same slope. This
suggests that it might be possible to analyse
the stress nattem as a series of repeating units,
the stresses and size of each being propor-
tional to the distance from the apex_
3. COMPARISON WITH RADIAL STRESS FIELD
The full stress equations are a pair of non-
linear partial differential equations of a
236
basically hyperbolic type [I, 2,7] _ Tf, how-
ever, these equations are expressed in polar
coordinates (r, 5) and the assumption is made
that the average stress p is directly propor-
tional to r, so that p = ~rq(E) and 6 = e(E), a
pair of ordin&T differential equations results.
These can readily be sohred [Z, 71 and the
resulting solution is known as the Radial
Stress FieId. The solution of the ordinary
equations for the RSF requires fewer bound-
ary conditions than the solution of the full
equations and hence the solution cannot be
generally correct. In particular, the extensive
tabuiations of the RSF solutions given by
Jenike [2] require only a knowledge of 8 (0)
and 0 (C2); information about the stresses
applied to the top surface is not used. The
analogous situation in ordinary differential
equations is perhaps more familiar_ Fre-
quently a particular integral can be written
down by inspection. Though this is an exact
solution to the equations, it wiIl not neces-
sarily satisfy the boundary conditions and a
complementary function is also required for
a complete solution_ Similarly, the RSF is a
solution to the equations but is not neces-
sarily the solution to the problem_
Jenike [23 argues that the applied stresses
on the top surfaces only have a local effect
and that the full solution rapidly tends to
the RSF. The accuracy of this is considered
below.
Fig_ 3_ Distribution of wall stress with depth in an active hopper with various 9,
(a) Active state
Solutions for an active hopper with half-
angle 5”, internal angle of friction 30” and
various wall friction angles have been deter-
mined. The variation of normal stress on the
wall with depth is shown in Fig. 3. The
solution is continuous for @, 3 9.7”. For
9, > 9.7”, stresses tend to zero at the apex-
For 0, = 9_7”, however, all characteristics
are straight and the pattern is merely an
extension of the top surface Rankine zone.
Therefore the wall stress increases linearly
with depth and has a finite value at the apex.
For 0, < 9_7”, the solution is discontinuous
and, although no precise calculations were
carried out, it was established that the stresses
increase with depth and tend to infinity at
the apex.
Although Jenike is not concerned with
active hoppers, radial stress fields may be
determined for the apex in the same way as
he determines them for passive hoppers.
However, they exist only for 0, > 21.78”,
at which value q becomes infinite everywhere.
These values obtained for wall stress are
plotted on Fig. 3 for comparison. There is
obvious agreement over the lowest 10% of
the hopper in the fully rough-wall case i@, =
30”), but for & = 28”, the exact solution
appears to line up with the radial stress field
(RSF) result only very close to the apex_
This can be seen more clearly by looking at
values; Q = 0, Q = 30”, n = 5O_
 247

numerical values: dpjdh,, = 0_86r; at h/h, =

0.05, the exact solution gives dp/& = 0.707,
while at h/h, = 0.01, we find dp/dh = 0.81~
and p/h = O.SZy, where h is height above the
apex and ho isthe height of the free surface.
A limiting value ciose to 0.867 seems there-
fore quite likely. For Q, = 22”. there appears
from the figure to be no agreement between
the two results. Examination of numerical
values shows that the slope of the curve at
h/ho = 0.001 is still only one-seventh of the
RSF slope. However, the slope is changing
rapidly enough for there to be the possibility
Fig. 4. Wall and centre-line stress distribution in a
that a value close to the RSF slope might
passivehopper; Q = 0, o = 30";9, = 25",52 = 10".
eventually be achieved.
Thus it seems that the radial stress field
may well provide an asymptote for the
hopper stress field at the apex. However,
the distance over which this asymptote
approximates the solution well is negligibly
small, except when the wall is fully rough,
and even then only over one-tenth of the
hopper depth.
Referring to the figure again, we see that,
for & = loo, the wall stress curve reaches
the apex with infinite slope. If the RSF and
exact solutions agree everywhere, then we
expect this infinite slope to apply for all
0, < 21.78”. Although the curve for 0, =
21” may not appear to attain such a slope,
once again the actual numerical values show Fig_ 5. Comparison of wall stresses predicted by
an extremely large rate of increase in slope >xrious analyses in a passive hopper; Q = 0, fi = 40’,
near the apex, and an infinite slope is per- 0 = 30”. 0, = 20”.
fectly feasible_ Further support for this is
given later in Section 4, where Walters’ one-quarter of the way for the steeper one.
analytic distribution of stresses approxi- Consequently there are far fewer jumps in the
mates closely the exact solution over a stress distribution for the shallower hopper.
finite region near the apex and predicts an Since the average slope of the d&continuities
infinite slope at the apex for much the same is much the same in each case, this result is
range of 9, _ predominantly the geometrical effect of the
different hopper half-angles_ Now it can be
observed that, below the first discontinuity,
Figure 2 shows the pattern of characteris- the wall stress falls with a nearly constant
tics and discontinuities in a hopper for which average slope to the apex in both cases. The
Q = 10”. @ = 30” and 4, = 25”_ Figure 4 effect of the different geometries then is to
shows the stress distribution on the wall and make this average slope much higher and the
on the centre-line in this case. Similarly proportion of the hopper over which it
Fig. 5 shows the wall distribution for the case applies much lower for the shallow than the
Q = 40”, Q = 30” and 0, = 20”. steep hopper.
In both cases, the stresses tend to zero at Radial stress fields have been generated for
the apex. The major difference between the these two cases and for several others for
plots is that for the shallow hopper the fiit which methods of characteristic solutions
discontinuity reaches the wall three-quarters have been generated. Since the RSF gives a
of the way down the hopper compared with linear distribution with depth, it obviously
248
cannot reproduce the effects of the discon-
tinuities. However, it is found from pIots of
the results such as Figs. 4 and 5 that, below
the first discontinuity, the RSF provides a
good average to the oscillating exact solution
at the wall in all cases. Examination of numer-
ical values on the centre-line shows that the
RSF provides a good average there also_
That the radial stress field is in fact ap-
proached towards the apex of the hopper
has been proved by Jenike [Z] from an
analysis of the governing equations and
argued by Gardner [9] from dimensional
analysis cdnsiderations. The existence of
discontinuities in the exact solution in the
usual passive case is an indication of the
limitation of these arguments. Jenike’s proof
is made under the assumption of a continuous
stress field in the neighbourhood of the apex
and so ignores the occurrence of discontinu-
ous fields. Furthermore, the analysis is
strictly correct only as r + 0. By carrying
out a dimensiomii analysis, we find, as
Gardner must have found, that for a sur-
chargeless surface,
where position is given in polar coordinates
(r, f) centred at the apex, and B is some bin
dimension (e.g. height of the free surface
above the apex)_ This shows that we cannot
expect that the RSF will hold over any finite
radius at all. This conclusion can also be
drawn from the occurrence of infinite p/-yr
values in certain active cases_ If this were
true for anq~finite radius, p would become
infinite, which is impossible.
For passive free-surface hoppers, it is
found that except for close to the maximum
value given by eqn. (7), the RSF is a good
average to the osciUating solution over at least
20% bf the height_ This result constitutes the
only true justification for the use by Jenike
123 of the RSF results in his design procedure
for sizing the hopper outlet_ However, if the
fully plastic solution applies, the use of the
RSF values wili still lead to error- We can
define a new p/yr by considering the straight
line through the apex which marks an uIjper
limit to the discontinuous stress distribution_
This is illustrated in Fig. 4_ Using this value
in the design, we deduce a larger outlet size
which is necessary to ensure flow under
these conditions.
As Jenike has pointed out, radial stress
field soIutions exist for all +,&, combinations
over the entire range of hopper half-angles
from 0” to 90”. This is, of course, much
wider than the range for which solutions to
free surface problems could be found by the
method of characteristics. It is natural to ask
whether RSF solutions outside this range
have any significance_ We can begin to answer
this question by remembering that the radial
stress field is an exact solution to the ful!
equations of equilibrium. If we consider a
hopper with top surface conditions satisfying
the RSF for the appropriate 0 and O,, then
the RSF must be a complete solution to the
probIem. Moreover, the solution is unique
since it is constructed entirely using the three
basic boundary-value problems, the solution
to each of which is unique f12] _ Thus the
RSF is the only complete solution for these
top surface boundary conditions_ This has
been confirmed by reproducing the RSF by
the method of characteristics in several cases,
although it should be added that the solutions
show some numerical instability.
It seems likely therefore that for hoppers
with half-angles outside the range, certain
surcharge conditions on the top surface will
produce fully plastic solutions. Furthermore,
it is possible that if the top surface conditions
do not allow a fully plastic solution, the
resulting rigid regions near the top of the
hopper will rrct as an effective surcharge
allowing the stressfieldto be plasticevery-
where near the hopper outlet and thus,
perhaps, leading to flow without stagnant
regionsthere.Inthiscasethisplasticregion
near the outlet could be expected to be
asymptotic to the RSF. Nevertheless it is
unlikely that with the existence of rigid
regions the overall flow which does OCCUT
will be mass flow- Thus the maximum 52
value forwhichafreesurfacesolutionexists
possibly represents the limitingvalue of Q
or-at Ieastan upper bound on ~2 for which
massflowcanoccur.
4_ COMPARISON WITH OTHER APPROXIMATE
SOLUTIONS
The differential slice method of Janssen
143 was extended by Walker [ 3 ] to analyse

stresses in hoppers. He considered a slice with
vertical sides as shown in Fig. 6(a) and derived
the expression:
where
BD
CC-
tans2
(11)
D, the distribution factor, is the ratio of the
vertical stress at the wall to the average ver-
tical stress across the hopper; B is the ratio of
shear stress to vertical normal stress at the
wall and co is the average vertical stress at h =
ho. For the special case of C = 1, the analysis
yields the equation
(a,,,), = rh In (tc) + a0 k
Fig. 6_ Differentialslicesused in varioushopperstress
L%lZlYseS.
Some features of these expressions can
easily be shown:
(1) For C I 0, the stress at the apex is zero,
and for 0 < C < 2 the gradient of the stress
there becomes infinite (from the positive
side)_
(2) For C < 0, the stress at the apex be-
comes infinite with infinite gradient.
249
Walters [lo] considered the more accurate
differential slice with sides along the hopper
as shown in Fig. 6(b). For 2D wedges, his
expression is the same as Walker’s except
that:
cc BD
-+D-1 (12)
tans2
Walters also suggests the use of a different
value of D from Walker.
Recently, Enstad [ll] has devised another
approximate theory for stresses in hoppers.
He considers a differential slice bounded by
differential segments of the walls of the
hopper and two non-concentric circular arcs
as shown in Fig. 6(c)_ Each arc represents the
line of action of the major principal stress.
The arc is located from the knowledge of 0
and hence the tangent to the arc at the wall
and centre-line. Along each arc, p is con-
sidered constant_ Enstad derives the following
expression for p:
7Yr Y yro r -?
p=x-_l (
+ PO-x-_l >I >6 (13)
where r is the distance along the wall from the
apexandOiriro,
X = sin o {l + sin(2d + Q)/sin R}/(l -sin 6)
y=W+W sin Q + sin d sin(d + 52))
(1 -sin 0)sin2(d f ~2)
d = (w f ON.)/2
and p. is the value of p at r = I-,.
The use of this analysis for a hopper alone
(as compared with a bin-hopper combina-
tion) has the difficulty that the elementary
slice forces the top surface to be the arc of a
circle, which may be rather unrealistic- The
discrepancy between the arc and the hori-
zontal at the same r is largest for large fi and
0, close to 9. It must be pointed out that
Enstad develops the analysis for a bin-hopper
combination which does not involve having
to take the free surface as a circular arc.
Before the analysis of Walker or Walters
can be used, a value of D has to be decided
upon. Walker suggests taking D = I for the
passive case_ He does not consider the fuhy
active case, but by analogy with the passive
case we will refer to the D = 1 active case as
Walker’s analysis. Under this value of D,
Walters’ solution yields the same results, since
the Same value of C is given by eqns_ (11) and
(12). However, Walters assumes that, on any
horizontal pIane. uu = constant and T,,, =
(_x/_K,)(~,,),\. _)where x = 0 at the centre-line_
These are the conditions which hold at great
depth in a bin, and so his D values are the
same as those occurring there. except that 0,
is replaced by a new parameter n where:

tan 17 = (~X>L./(~Xz)~- (14)

These assumptions become unworkable for
the passive problem if -O_ lies outside the
range:
2_0_ d Q - Q,~ f cos-l (sin p&in 0)
which, using G, reduces to the more usefu:
form
2-C f X/2 f 0 -Gi -6, (15)
The maximum value of-O_ is given when 17 = o_
For -CLoutside the range, insistence that the
shear stress is proportional to distance from
the centre-Iine means the hlohr circie at the
centre-line must be that for the active state,
which is impossible in a passive problem.
The restrictiveness of (15) is apparent for
the esample of a fully rough wall, since we
finda G 0,i.e. thehopper cannotopenup
at ah_ Walters suggests (15) may be a limit for
mass flow, but this disagrees with all esperi-
mental findings_ Moreover, this is merely a
limit beyond which the assumptions cannot
hold, and although they can be shown to be
valid at great depth in a bin, there is no theo-
retical reason why they should hold in a
hopper-

(a) Actiue state (b) a> == Lz”, x2%-- L” d&l w/s

In the active state. values of D at great
depth in a bin are close to l_ Hence there will
be little difference between the results of
WaIker and WaItem Plotted on Fig_ 7(a) are
some results by the method of characteristics
for the waII stress distribution on the 5O
hopper discussed in Section 3. Also plotted
are the corresponding results by WaIker’s
metbod_Itis seenthattheseresultsfallbelow
the exact solutions over the lower half of the
hopper. Agreement, in generaI, is good
although it is worse for large 0, than for
smah. This is expected since, for 0, = 9.7”,
the exact stress distribution is an extension of
the Rankine zone_ Under these circumstances,
Fig_ 7_ Distribution of wall stress in an active bin for
various Is,. values; Q = 0. fi = 5”. 0 = 30”.
D is exactly 1 and the WaIker result follows
that of the method of characteristics. For all
other &, there is a distribution of D with
depth which could be determined numerically
from the exact solution as was done for the
active bin. However, some information can be
obtained about D without doing this_ We have
already shown that the radia.I stress 6eM
approximates well the walI stresses near the
apex. It is a simple matter to caIcu1at.e D
during the generation of the radial stress field,
and this must then be the same as the exact D

near the apex. If this value of D is used in the
Walters analysis, the predicted stresses near
the apex must also agree with the exact solu-
tion. Stresses by this method are shown along
with the D = 1 results in Fig_ 7(b) for 0, =
28“ and 22”: It can be seen that the agree-
ment is excellent, not just over the very small
distance for which the radial stress field holds,
but over most of the hopper_ This indicates
that, although the absolute values of the RSF
are not correct over this region, the integrated
effect of the relative distribution of stresses
across a horizontal plane is nearly correct and
hence the value of D calculated is the same as
that for the exact solution. Agreement is
poorer over the top half of the hopper, but
this is to be expected from the use of any
constant value of D since D is known to vary
near the top surface.
We can also calculate the distribution using
the value of D suggested by Walters. For 0, =
28”, D = 0.8712 compared with the RSF
value of 0.8688. For 0, = 22”, D = 0.9637
compared with 0.9634. Thus the Walters dis-
tribution of wall stress can be expected to be
barely distinguishable from that using the
RSF value of D, and therefore also to agree
well with the exact results over the lower part
of the hopper. This is confirmed in Fig. 7(b),
where the Walters curve is coincident with the
corresponding DRsF curve in the 0, = 22”
and 28” cases. For 0, = 21”, there is no RSF
and therefore no Da,, curve, but the Walters
curve which reaches the apex with infinite
slope is once again in good agreement with
the exact solution over the lower part.
One point for comparison is the maximum
value of &, for which an infinite stress
gradient is predicted at the apex. For the RSF
it was found to be 9, = 2X78”_ For the
Walters/Walker methods it is given by solving
the equation C = 1. For D = 1, this gives
0, = 2X55”, and for the Walters value of
D (O-97), 6, = 21.69”. There is thus good
agreement_
(b) Passive state
It must be emphasised at the outset that
since the analyses of Walker, Walters and
Enstad give smooth wall stress distributions,
they can never approximate the discontinu-
ous exact solution well. The best they can be
expected to do is give good average values
over one section or other of the hopper-
251
Fig. 8. Comparison of wall stresses predicted by
vakous anal&s in a passive hopper; 4 = 0.0 = 30”,
I& = 25”, fi = 10”.
Figures 5 and 8 show the exact wall stress
distributions for the two hoppers considered
in Section 3. The results by Walker’s method
(i-e_ D = 1) are also plotted. In both cases,
agreement is poor everywhere in the hopper.
Stresses in the lower section are larger than
the average of the method of characteristics
solution and are larger even than the locus of
the peaks of the discontinuous pattern. For
the shallower hopper (Fig- 5), C as given by
eqn. (12) is 0.255. This is in the range 0 <
C < 1 for which the stress distribution tends
to zero at the apex with an infinite slope_ This
is in complete disagreement with the radial
stress field result shown. Before examining
the results from Walters’ equation with
various D values, let us consider the results so
far for an even shallower hopper, Le. X2 = 55”,
Q = 30”, f&, = 25”. Under these conditions,
fl is greater than the maximum value (r/2 -
(w + 9,)/2) of the range (7) and no fully
plastic solution can be found for a horizontal
stress-free surface. Since the above maximum
value of !EI coincides with the condition
(T._)_. = 0, and since (T.&. = 0 leads to a zero
value for Walker’s C, the above hopper condi-
tions give C < 0, and Walker’s stress distribu-
tion tends to infinity rather than zero at the
apex. This unrealistic result and the RSF
solution for the same conditions are plotted
in Fig. 9.
For the three hoppers under discussion, we
can de&&D values from their radial stress
fields. As explained in the active case, the
Walters distributions derived using these
values of D will agree with the RSF near the
apex and hence give a good average to the
discontinuous wall stress over at least that
252
II _ from D > 2 to D < 1 at the changeover
Fig_ 9. Comparison of wall stresses predicted by
various analyses in a passive hopper; Q = 0. ,O_= 55 I.
0 = 30”. &. = 25”.
range for which the RSF gives a good average_
To verify this in practice, the resuIts are
plotted in Figs_ 5, S and 9_ The agreement is
certainly there for the two steeper hoppers.
For Fig_ 9, however, there is no fully plastic
result for comparison. Although the gradient
of the stress for the IVaIters distribution with
the RSF D value agrees with the RSF gradient
at the apes, these two results quickly diverge.
Despite the fact that there is no fully plastic
solution to this problem, if material flows
from the hopper and the flow channel near
the apex estends to the waI!s, the solution
must be pIastic in the neighbourhood of the
outlet- Ke can conclude that this plastic solu-
tion (or its average if it is discontinuous)
agrees with the RSF only at the apex and
therefore not at the likely position of the
outlet.
Results can also he obtained using W&es’
equation and his suggested values of D_ For
the 10” hopper, 1) is given by (14) as 2X72”,
which gives a value of D of 2.155 compared
with the RSF value of 2-05. The wall stresses
in these two cases are consequently in good
agreement, as shown in Fig. 8, and therefore
WaRers’ value of D leads to a good average to
the exact distribution over the lower section
of the hopper. For the other two hoppers,
C, is greater than R,, given by the equality
in (15). In this case, Walters suggests using
the acfive D values for the value of q ob-
tained from (14) Tbis is clearly incorrect
since it means a discontinuous change in D
value of Q _ Results for such D values will he
more in error than those for D = 1. -4 possible
compromise is to use, for all SL > filimr the
value of D for SL = -cLri,, Le. for 11= 0. This
leads to a D of 2.6905 compared with RSF
values of 2.32 for the 40” and 2-53 for the
55” hoppers. Thus we expect better agree-
ment in the latter than in the former case.
This is supported by the results in Figs. 5
and 9.
Walker uses his results (Le. D = 1) for
design, in which, like Jenike, he is concerned
with avoiding arching at the outlet. He reabses
that the RSF gives values of D much greater
than 1, but states that “wall stresses are
reasonably insensitive to great variations of D
from unity to infinity”. From the large varia-
tions in shape for various D values, which
Fig_ 5 indica’tes, this statement is untrue if
the correct value of C as presented by U’alters
is used. Walker’s resu1t.sgive poor approxima-
tions to the discontinuous solutions for all
hut very small values of ,O__Walters’ results
(using his suggested D values with the modi-
fied procedure given above) are much more
accurate. However, the radial stress field
solution gives the best average to the discon-
tinuous pattern It could be used in the design
procedure, if the result were increased by a
generous factor to simulate the locus of the
discontinuity peaks. However, use of the
exact solution is to be preferred_
Finally, Enstad’s analysis can be consid-
ered_ For a particular hopper and particular
wall stress parameters (e.g. o,), the area under
the wall stress distribution, which is propor-
tional to the weight of material in the hopper.
is the same whatever method of calculation is
used_ However, since Enstad’s analysis
assumes the top surface of the hopper to he
convex upwards, the weight of material sup-
ported for the same height of material at the
wall (see Fig. 6) is larger in this case than for
a horizontal surface. Hence the area under the
stress curve will be larger, and agreement with
the exact solution or a good approximation to
it cannot be expected_ This is shown in the
three relevant plots - Figs_ 5,s and 9_ The
difference increases with increasing Q and o,
(for a given @)_ What can also be seen, how-
ever, is that the shape of the curve is in each
case similar to the Walters’ distribution (using
either Walters’ D or the RSF D). Reduction
 253

of the absolute values of stress by the ratio D ratio of vertical stress at the wall to
of weights of material in the two hoppers the average across the hopper
will obviously give quite a gocd approsima- h height above the apes
tion to the solution. ho height of the top surface
Although, over the lower part of the P average stress
hopper, Enstad’s results are in poor agree- PM-
ment with the radial stress field in these cases
for which o = 30”, Enstad has shown that
E?
r
aeplied stress on top surface
radial distance from some origin
they agree well for larger o_ Arnold and r0 distance from apex to hopper top in
McLean [13, 141 have shown in fact that, Enstad’s analysis
for 0 = 50”, Enstad’s results are closer to horizontal, vertical coordinates
the radial stress field than are Walters’_ terms defined in Enstad’s equation
(13)
weight density
CONCLUSION angular coordinate in polar system
angle defined in \Valters’ equation (14)
By means of the method of characteristics, major principal stress direction
fully plastic stress fields can be found for two- coefficient of friction (= tan p)
dimensional hoppers_ In the active case, solu- normal stress
tions are usually continuous, while in the shear stress
passive case they are usually discontinuous angle of internal friction
Calculations confirm that the radial stress angle of wall friction
field near the apex of the hopper is the sin-i (sin o,./sin o)
asymptote to which the complete solution hopper half-angle
tends. In the active case, the RSF is a good
approximation onIy very close to the apex.
In the passive case, the discontinuous stress REFERENCES
pattern oscillates about the RSF for a signifi-
cant distance from the hopper apex_ 1 R_ hI_ Home and R. AI. Nedderman, Analysis of
Of other approximate passive solutions the stress distribution in two-dimensional bins by
the method of characteristics, Powder Technol.,
available, Walker’s wall stress predictions are
14 (1976) 93.
poor. Walters’ results are much more accurate 2 A. IV_ Jenike, Gravity flow of bulk solids, Utah
in general. although. near the apes, they may Univ. Eng_ Exp_ Stn. Bull_ 108. 1961.
still differ significantly horn the more 3 D. hI_ Walker. _An approximate theory for pres-
rigorous solutions_ sures and arching in hoppers, Chem. Eng. Sci., 21
(1966) 975_
1 H. A. Janssen, Versuche iiber Getreidedruck in
Silozellen. 2. Ver. Dtsch. Ing.. 39 (1895) 1045.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5 J. R. Johanson and A_ W. J&&e,- Stre& and
velocity fields in gravity flow of bulk solids, Utah
R. M. Home is grateful to the Walter and Univ. I&g_ Esp. Stn. Bull. 116, 1962_
Eliza Hall Travelling Scholarship Fund of the 6 J. R. Johanson, Stress and velocity fields in the
gravity flow of bulk solids, J. Xppl. blech., 31
University of Queensland, and to Peterhouse, (1964) 499.
Cambridge, for the financial support to carry 7 V_ V. Sokolovskii, Statics of Granular Media,
out this research. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1965.
8 R. &I. Home, Theoretical anaylsis of stress dis-
tributions in bins and hoppers, Dissertation sub-
mitted to Univ. of Cambridge, 1976.
LIST OF SYhIBOLS
9 G. C. Gardner. Central Electricity Res. Lab. Rep.
RD/L/hI/50/1963 cited by J. C. Richards, (Ed.),
a half-width of hopper at the top surface The Storage and Recovery of Particulate Solids,
b characteristic dimension of the hopper Inst. Che& Eng., London, 1966, p_ 106.
B ratio of shear stress to vertical normal 10 J. K_ Walters, A theoretical analysis of stresses in
axially-symmetric hoppers and bunkers, Chem.
stress at the wall Eng_ Sci., 28 (1973) 779_
C BDltan s-2 11 G. Enstad, On the theory of arching in mass-flow
d (0 +9,)/z hoppers, Chem. Eng. Sci., 30 (1976) 1273.
254

12 W. F_ Ames, Non-Linear Partial Differential Equa-
tions in Engineering, Academic Press, New York,
1965
13 P_ C_ Arnold and _4_ G_ McLean. An analytical
solution for the sires function at the wall of a
converging channel, Powder Technol.. 13 (1976)
255_
14 P. C_ Arnold and A_ G. McLean. Improved ana-
Iytical flow factors for mass-flow hoppers,
Powder Techncl.. 15 (1975) 279.