The plain strain hypothesis is a fundamental concept in solid mechanics, widely used to analyze two-dimensional problems where one dimension is significantly longer compared to the other two. This model is commonly applied in geotechnical engineering for analyzing structures such as slopes, retaining walls, and tunnels. Under this hypothesis, deformation in the longitudinal direction (typically the third dimension, z) is considered zero, implying that all relevant deformations and stresses occur in the xy plane with no variation along the longitudinal axis.

Limitations of the Plain Strain Hypothesis #

1. Limited Geometry: The plain strain hypothesis is only suitable for situations where one dimension is substantially longer than the other two, such as structures extending indefinitely in one direction. It cannot be applied effectively to problems with significant dimensional variation.
2. Assumption of Invariance: This model assumes that the conditions do not change along the length of the structure, an assumption that often proves unrealistic, especially when dealing with variations in geometry or material properties.
3. Homogeneous and Isotropic Material: It is typically assumed that materials are homogeneous and isotropic, an idealization that does not reflect the heterogeneous and anisotropic nature of many soils and rocks encountered in practice.
4. Incomplete Volumetric Deformation: The hypothesis neglects deformation in the longitudinal direction, which can lead to inaccuracies if there are substantial stress or deformation variations along this axis.
5. Applicability to Real-World Scenarios: The plain strain model often falls short when applied to real-world conditions, where boundary conditions and material property variations can undermine its validity.

Despite these limitations, the plain strain hypothesis is frequently used due to its simplicity, enabling quick and approximate solutions that are valuable in preliminary design stages. However, it is critical to validate the applicability of this model based on the specific conditions of the engineering problem.

Plain Strain Model: Inadequate for Analyzing Cylindrical Tanks #

While the plain strain hypothesis is valuable in certain applications, it is unsuitable for the geotechnical analysis of cylindrical tanks. Cylindrical tanks, which have comparable dimensions in all directions, experience complex stress distributions that the plain strain model cannot accurately capture. This is due to the model’s assumption that stresses and deformations along the longitudinal axis (around the tank’s circumference) are constant or nonexistent, which does not align with the actual behavior of tanks under operational loads.

Reasons Why Plain Strain Is Not Applicable for Cylindrical Tanks: #

1. Axisymmetric Nature: Cylindrical tanks experience stress and deformation variations along their circumference due to internal pressure, external loads, and soil interaction. The plain strain hypothesis fails to represent these circumferential effects, simplifying the problem to two dimensions and neglecting crucial variations.
2. Circumferential Stresses (Hoop Stresses): The most critical stresses in a cylindrical tank are circumferential, particularly under internal or external pressures. The plain strain model cannot effectively simulate these stresses, potentially leading to erroneous assessments of the tank’s stability and safety.
3. Load Distribution: Tanks are subject to multi-directional loads, including liquid pressure, soil pressure, and external hydrostatic pressures. These loads necessitate a model that accounts for the tank’s symmetry, something the plain strain hypothesis does not achieve.
4. Complex Soil Interaction: The interaction between the tank and the surrounding soil is inherently three-dimensional, involving differential settlements and non-uniform lateral pressures. A plain strain approach may significantly underestimate movements and stresses, compromising the accuracy of the analysis.

Recommended Model: Axisymmetric Analysis for Cylindrical Tanks #

For a precise analysis of cylindrical tanks, the axisymmetric model in FEM, is the preferred approach. This model accurately considers stresses in all directions around the tank, capturing the three-dimensional behavior of the structure under various load conditions. It allows for the correct evaluation of circumferential and radial stresses and accounts for the full interaction with the surrounding soil, offering a realistic representation of the tank’s performance under operational loads.

In conclusion, while the plain strain model offers simplicity and speed, its limitations make it unsuitable for complex structures like cylindrical tanks. For these scenarios, axisymmetric modeling is essential to ensure accurate geotechnical assessments and reliable design outcomes.

Explore more about the applications of these modeling approaches in geotechnical engineering and leverage the latest tools and insights to optimize your structural analyses today, book an online presentation, or open a support ticket for professional consultation or a quick analysis by us.