FACULTY MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND

MATERIALS ENGINEERING
Delft University of Technology

Department Marine and Transport Technology
Mekelweg 2
2628 CD Delft
the Netherlands
Phone

+31 (0)15-2782889

Fax

+31 (0)15-2781397

www.mtt.tudelft.nl

Specialization:

Transport Engineering and Logistics

Report number: 2012.TEL.7733
Title:

Wind load on a crane

Author:

S.P. Oostlander

Title (in Dutch)

Windbelasting op een kraan

Assignment:

literature assignment

Confidential:

no

Initiator (university):

-

Initiator (company):

-

Supervisor:

Ir. W. van den Bos

Date:

February 14, 2013

This report consists of 97 pages and 0 appendices. It may only be reproduced literally and as a whole. For
commercial purposes only with written authorization of Delft University of Technology. Requests for consult are
only taken into consideration under the condition that the applicant denies all legal rights on liabilities concerning
the contents of the advice.

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND
MATERIALS ENGINEERING
Delft University of Technology

Department of Marine and Transport Technology
Mekelweg 2
2628 CD Delft
the Netherlands
Phone

+31 (0)15-2782889

Fax

+31 (0)15-2781397

www.mtt.tudelft.nl

Student:

S.P. Oostlander

Assignment type:

Literature

Supervisor (TUD):

Ir. W. van den Bos

Creditpoints (EC):

12

Specialization:

TEL

Report number:

2012.TL.7733

Confidential:

No

Subject:

Wind load on a crane

During the student’s research assignment [2011.TEL.7600], in which cyclists’ aerodynamic position on
the bicycle has been investigated, the interest in wind engineering, wind loads and wind effects grew.
For this literature assignment the world of cycling is changed in the world of cranes and large
structures. Books, papers and the in the Netherlands applicable standards for wind loads on cranes
have been investigated.
An overview about used wind pressures, force coefficients and calculation methods is given.
The professor,

Prof. P. Professor

Preface
This report is the result of my, Sander Oostlander, literature assignment. The assignment has been
performed as part of my Master of Science Transportation Engineering and Logistics at the Technical
University of Delft.
This research has given me the opportunity to increase my knowledge on wind engineering and
working with standards. Working with multiple national, European and American standards I’ve come
to know more about how wind loads are calculated, coefficients determined and which dynamical
effects play a part in crane design.

3

In the Netherlands the NEN organization is responsible for producing the in the Netherlands applicable standards. Commonly a 3 second mean wind velocity or a 10 minute mean wind velocity with a return period of 50 years. ISO 4301. The fundamental wind velocity is recorded at a height of 10meters above flat and open country and averaged over a chosen time period. nature etc. Moderate. The resulting mean wind velocity is still a static wind velocity. national standards. NEN 13001. This mainly because the newer standards use a factor for turbulence and the older don’t take turbulence into account. Extreme wind conditions (out-of-service conditions) can lead to overload. The wind pressure (q) is a function of the height (z). as a function of the height of the structure. loss of static equilibrium and failure of the structure. A wind flow can generate a pressure on a surface (q) resulting in a force (F). The fundamental wind velocity is increased or decreased by the absence or presence of nearby structures. The difference in wind pressure between the older standards (NEN 2018) and the newer standards (NEN 13001 and NEN 1991) is big. wind loads (in-service conditions) can also strongly contribute in the fatigue of a crane. So an annual risk of exceeding this wind velocity of p=0. De magnitude of the force depends on the projected area of the structure (A) and the aerodynamic drag coefficient (C). hills.02. The dynamics of a wind flow are expressed by the gust factor which is a function of the turbulence intensity. Table A gives an overview of the different static fundamental wind velocities found in the standards used in this report. All international standards from CEN and ISO must also be approved by NEN. Figure B gives an overview of the resulting wind pressure of the used standards. the wind velocity (v) and the air density (ρ). it’s obligatory for the design to satisfy with the applicable. Wind is an air flow with a certain density. These standards describe all (wind) loads and combined load cases which a crane must resist during its lifetime. Turbulence is the ratio of the standard deviation of the wind velocity and the mean wind velocity. Eurocode 1 and ASCE 7/10. Figure A shows where each region or wind area can be found in the Netherlands. The fundamental wind velocity is a static wind velocity. This report contains: NEN 2018. 4 .Summary When designing a crane. ( ) ( ) ( ) The fundamental wind velocity used to determine the wind pressure differs over the standards. but fluctuating. In reality a wind flow is not a static flow but dynamic constantly fluctuating flow. velocity and direction. before they are obligatory.

As shown in figure C. depending on the structures solidity and slenderness. NEN 2018 and ASCE 7-10 4. The newer standards contain extended tables of aero dynamical coefficients which are influenced by the wind angle.Table A Fundamental wind velocities Figure A Locations of the fundamental wind velocities from table A Wind pressure q [N/m2] Wind pressure. NEN 13001.500 2. NEN 1991.000 2. As shown in figure C.500 3. The aero dynamical coefficients given are basic values which can be reduced.000 1.000 500 00 0 50 100 150 200 250 Height z [m] NEN 13001 out-of-service C NEN 13001 out-of-service D NEN 2018 out-of-service NEN 1991 WA I and Terrain Cat. The solidity is the ratio between the projected area (A) of all members and the total enclosed area (Ac). calculated using the fundamental wind velocities form table A The aero dynamical coefficients (C) are given in a similar way in all standards. cross section shapes and details like rounded corners.500 1. The slenderness is at least the ratio between the length (l) and the characteristic diameter of a member (h). structures dimensions. In the newer standards the position of the member within the structure influences the slenderness. 0 NEN 1991 WA II and Terrain Cat. II ASCE 7-10 Inland Figure B Wind pressure.000 3. 5 .

The wind flow inside the wind tunnel should contain a wind velocity which varies with the height. Wind loads from standards remain rough estimates which ensure a safely designed structure. More consistency will develop more detailed and worldwide applicable standards. A common force balance does not allow dynamical behaviour and can only be used to determine aerodynamic coefficients. in which wind tunnel and CFD testing provides more and more insight. a worldwide standard can contain much more data and detail in determine the wind pressure. Dynamic behaviour can be investigated using wind tunnel research. The difference is made in the chosen wind velocities and the amount of detail of the aerodynamic coefficients. A wind load is one of the many loads acting on a structure. but only when using an. splitters or adding mechanical coupling and by increasing the structures stiffness and damping. A structure can very well overload under non-maximal wind loads when a dynamic response occurs. air density etc. All standards use alike methods. The knowledge on wind dynamics and the resulting wind loads is a constantly developing field. but still differ. The growth of world trade is will force the number of standards to reduce and become more consistent. Therefor multiple dimensionless coefficients need to be checked. 6 . and resulting wind velocity. A wind tunnel model crane needs to be constructed in such a way that it behaves identical to the real life crane. An energy build-up can cause a structure to oscillate until failure. Because each part of the world has its own climate. expensive. a boundary layer. Dynamic behaviour can be caused by the fluctuating nature of the wind flow. When a structure is sensible to dynamical behaviour or the first natural frequency is below 1Hz wind tunnel testing is also advised. in which each load has its own contribution and resulting safety factor. Each load is classified: Permanent. aero-elastic support system instead of a simple force balance. Wind loads contribute in the occurring stresses and the body stability. for a crane this is often the case. A worldwide standard can increase and accelerate the knowledge on wind loads on structures. adding spoilers. temperature. All loads combined lead to a load case. by the structures shape which generates an oscillating wind flow or by a motion of the structure itself which causes an increase of the wind load.Figure C Solidity and slenderness of a structure or member All standards allow wind tunnel testing or CFD analysis to determine aero dynamical coefficients. Variable or Accidental. Dynamic behaviour can be avoid by avoiding critical cross sections. Constantly increasing and detailing the data in aerodynamic coefficient tables. In-service wind loads are variable actions and out of service wind loads are accidental actions.

welke constant of fluctuerend is. etc. Mattige. ( ) ( ) ( ) De gebruikte fundamentele windsnelheid verschilt tussen de normen. Deze normen beschrijven alle (wind) belastingen en belastingcombinaties die een kraan moet kunnen weerstaan tijdens zijn leven. Dit rapport bevat de volgende normen: NEN 2018. NEN 13001. Figuur I geeft een overzicht van waar welke wind regio of gebied zich bevindt. Dus een jaarlijkse kans op overschrijding van p=0. A wind stroming kan een druk genereren op een oppervlak (q) wat resulteert in een kracht (F). In werkelijkheid is een windstroming niet statisch maar dynamisch en constant veranderend. Tabel I geeft een overzicht van de fundamentele windsnelheden gebruikt in dit rapport. Turbulentie is de ratio tussen de standaard afwijking van de windsnelheid en de windsnelheid.Summary (in Dutch) Bij het ontwerpen van een kraan is het verplicht te voldoen aan de nationaal geldende normen. als functie van de hoogte van de constructie. In Nederland is de NEN organisatie verantwoordelijk voor het maken en voorschrijven van de normen.02. Extreme windcondities (buiten bedrijf) kunnen lijden tot overbelasting en het bezwijken van de constructie. de windsnelheid (v) en de luchtdichtheid (ρ). statische. heuvels. Deze dynamica van een windstroming wordt uitgedrukt door de vlaagfactor. Dit komt voornamelijk doordat the nieuwere normen turbulentie meenemen in de berekening en de oudere normen doen dit niet. Gebruikelijk is een 3 seconde of 10 minuten gemiddelde wind snelheid die iedere 50 jaar voorkomt. begroeiing. Eurocode 1 en ASCE 7/10. Figuur II geeft een overzicht van berekende winddrukken uit de gebruikte normen. De grote van de kracht wordt bepaald door het frontaaloppervlak (A) en de aerodynamische coëfficiënt (C). Alle internationale normen van CEN en ISO moeten ook eerst door de NEN getoetst worden. welke een functie is van de turbulentie intensiteit. Deze fundamentele windsnelheid is een statische windsnelheid. Wind is een lucht stroming met een zekere dichtheid. Dit resulteert in een gemiddelde. De fundamentele windsnelheid wordt verhoogd of verlaagd door de aanwezigheid of afwezigheid van bebouwing nabij. De winddruk (q) is een functie van de hoogte (z). De fundamentele windsnelheid wordt geregistreerd op 10meter hoogte boven vlak en open gebied en gemiddeld over een gekozen tijd. 7 . ISO 4301. snelheid en richting. maar fluctuerende. windbelastingen (in bedrijf) kunnen ook een grote bijdrage leveren aan de vermoeiing van een constructie. voordat ze geldend zijn. windsnelheid. Het verschil tussen de oude normen (NEN 2018) en de nieuwere normen (NEN 13001 en NEN 1991) is groot.

De gegeven aerodynamische weerstandscoëfficiënten zijn basis waarden die gereduceerd kunnen worden. afhankelijk van de volheid en de slankheid. 8 .500 3. NEN 1991. afmeting.000 1.000 3.500 1. II ASCE 7-10 Inland Figuur II Winddruk. Zoals te zien in figuur III. De slankheid is de ratio van tenminste de lengte (l) en de karakteristieke diameter (h) van een element. 0 NEN 1991 WA II and Terrain Cat.500 2.Tabel I Fundamentele windsnelheid Figuur I Locaties van de fundamentele windsnelheden uit tabel I Wind pressure q [N/m2] Wind pressure.000 2. berekend met de fundamentele windsnelheden uit tabel I De aerodynamische weerstandscoëfficiënten kunnen gevonden worden in tabellen en grafieken in de normen. De nieuwere normen bevatten uitgebreidere tabellen waarin de weerstandscoëfficiënten worden beïnvloed door de windhoek. De volheid van een element is de ratio tussen het frontaal oppervlak (A) en het omsloten oppervlak (Ac). NEN 13001. NEN 2018 and ASCE 7-10 4.000 500 00 0 50 100 150 200 250 Height z [m] NEN 13001 out-of-service C NEN 13001 out-of-service D NEN 2018 out-of-service NEN 1991 WA I and Terrain Cat. vorm van de doorsnede en details zoals afronding van hoeken.

Dynamisch gedrag kan worden vermeden door: kritische doorsneden te vermijden. De windbelasting is één van de vele belastingen op een constructie. zodanig dat deze oscilleert totdat de uitwijking tot breuk leidt. voor een kraan is dit vaak het geval. Alle belastingen gezamenlijk vormen een belastingscombinatie. Als een constructie gevoelig is voor dynamisch gedrag of de eerste eigenfrequentie is lager dan 1Hz worden windtunnel testen ook geadviseerd. toch verschillen ze. afhankelijk van de veiligheidsfactor. Windbelastingen tijdens bedrijf zijn variabel en buiten bedrijf incidenteel. Dynamisch gedrag kan worden onderzocht in een windtunnel. Wind 9 . Hiervoor moeten de dimensie loze schaal grootheden worden gecontroleerd. luchtdichtheid. Een gebruikelijke vaste balans kan wel gebruikt worden om de aerodynamische coëfficiënten te bepalen maar niet om dynamisch gedrag vast te stellen. i. Meer consistentie zal lijden tot gedetailleerdere en universeel toepasbare normen. Figuur III Volheid en slankheid van een constructie of element Alle normen staan ook windtunnel en CFD analyses toe om de aerodynamische coëfficiënten te bepalen.Zoals te zien in figuur III. Een constructie kan overbelast worden bij een niet maximale windbelasting wanneer er een dynamische response optreedt. een eenvoudige krachten balans. Energie kan worden opgebouwd in de constructie. De windstroming moet een snelheidsprofiel bevatten. Alle normen gebruiken gelijkaardige methodes. een grenslaag. waarbinnen elke belasting zijn eigen bijdrage heeft.p. zal een wereldwijde norm over meer detail en data kunnen beschikken als het gaat om het bepalen van de winddruk. Wind belastingen dragen bij aan de optredende spanningen in en aan het statisch evenwicht van een constructie. Dynamisch gedrag kan worden veroorzaakt door een fluctuerende wind. In de nieuwere normen wordt de slankheid ook beïnvloed door de positie van het element binnenin de constructie. spoilers of vinnen toe te voegen. door de vorm van de constructie zelf wanneer er een oscillerende loslating ontstaat of door de bewegingen van de constructie zelf wanneer deze de windbelasting vergroten. Een windtunnelschaalmodel moet zodanig gemaakt worden dat zijn gedrag identiek is met de werkelijke kraan. temperatuur. mechanische verbindingen te maken en door de stijfheid en demping van de constructie te verhogen. De groei van de wereldwijde handel zal lijden tot minder en meer consistente normen. Variabel of Incidenteel. Elke belasting is te classificeren als: Permanent.v. Echter hiervoor is dan een kostbaar aero-elastische ondersteuning nodig. Omdat iedere wereld deel zijn eigen klimaat heeft. en daardoor dus eigen windsnelheden. etc.

Een wereldwijde standaard zou dit proces van toenemende kennis over windbelastingen op constructies kunnen versnellen. Waardoor constant de data over aerodynamische weerstand coëfficiënt toeneemt en gedetailleerder wordt. Windtunneltesten en computer simulaties geven meer en meer inzicht.dynamica en de veroorzaakte windbelastingen is een gebied waarover de kennis continu toeneemt. 10 .

List of symbols Symbol A Unit Description 2 Frontal area of the member 2 m Ac m Enclosed area of a lattice structure Afr - Friction area. mode i p 2 N/m Wind pressure q N/m2 Wind pressure 2 qb N/m Basic wind pressure qp(z) N/m2 Wind pressure at a height z r - Risk of exceeding a curtain wind velocity during the 11 . swept by the wind Aref - Reference area b m Reference with of the cross section B - Background factor C - Aerodynamic drag coefficient of the member c0 - Aerodynamic coefficient for an infinite length member c0 - Topography coefficient ca - Aerodynamic coefficient Cdir - Constant for wind direction cf - Force coefficient cfr - Friction coefficient cpe - External pressure coefficient cpi - Internal pressure coefficient cr - Roughness coefficient cscd - Structural factor Cseason - Constant for wind velocity per season d m Characteristic dimension frec - Recurrence factor Fwind N Wind load G - Gust factor g - Peak factor hdis m Displacement height Iv(z) - Turbulence intensity at a height z Kd - Directionally factor kr - Terrain factor Kz - Exposure coefficient Kzt - Topographic coefficient L years Lifetime of a structure l0 m Length of a member ni - 2 Natural frequency.

mean m/s Mean wind velocity z m Height above the surface z0 m Roughness length zeff m Effective height above the surface zmin m Minimal height above the surface αT - Relative aerodynamic length η - Shielding factor λ - Aerodynamic slenderness ρ kg/m3 Density σv m/s Standard deviation of the wind velocity ϕ - Solidity ratio ψ - Reduction factor for the aerodynamic coefficient ψr - Reduction factor for the roundness of the corners ψλ - Reduction factor for the slenderness R 12 .max.structures lifetime R years Return period of a curtain wind velocity 2 - Resonant factor Re - Reynolds number Sc - Scruton number St - Strouhal number v m/s Wind velocity vb m/s Basic wind velocity vb.gust m/s Maximum gust wind velocity vwind.0 m/s Fundamental basic wind velocity vCG m/s Critical galloping wind velocity vcrit m/s Critical wind velocity vm(z) m/s Mean wind velocity at a height z vref m/s Reference wind velocity vs m/s Wind velocity vw m/s Wind velocity vwind.

............. 58 4............................3.................................3......................................................................................................................... 18 2.2 Standards .............. 21 2.............................. Design wind load ..............................................................................1 NEN-EN 13001-2:2011...............................................................................................................3..................... 24 2.................................................................................................................... 68 5..................................................................................................2.......................................................................................3 3. 38 3.................................................................... 42 3................................................................................ 4 Summary (in Dutch) .......................................3 Wind ........................................... 32 2.......2............................................. 3 Summary ........................................................ 66 5.... 16 1.2 Structural factor........................ wind load ..................................... 27 2...........................................................5 ASCE/SEI 7-10 ......................................2................................................................................... 63 5..................2 Wind load example: Crane hotel ...................... 65 5............2 NEN 2018:1983....................................................1 Buffeting ...........................3 ISO 4302: 1981 ... 7 List of symbols ............................3 ISO 4302:1981 ............1 NEN-EN 13001-2:2011............................................................................................................................ Dynamic wind effects ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................2.............3 Standards ......... 18 2.....................................................................................................................................4 NEN-EN 1991-1-4:2005 .......................................... 52 3.......................... 73 13 ............1 Wind load modelling ....................3..........................................................................................................................2..................................................................................... NEN-EN 1991-1-4..........................4 Basic wind load formula ..................................................................................................................................... 65 5........ Comparison of the standards........................................................3 Wind effects and vibrations .................................... 68 5...........................2 Standards ................................................................................... 68 5.........3...........3 Galloping .............................. wind pressure...........................................4 Comparison of the standards............................................................................ 15 1............................................................ 42 3...........Contents Preface ......................................... 51 3......... 38 3.........................................3............................................................................... Introduction ..................................................1 Wind velocity modelling ............................. 11 1.. 35 Wind load ..........................................2 Vortex shedding ...................... 38 3........4 NEN-EN 1991-1-4:2005 ...............................................................3............................................................................................................................................. 21 2................ 17 Wind pressure ....................... 2... 48 3......................................................................................................................2 NEN 2018:1983......................................... 26 2... 15 1.......1 Dynamic response ..............

...... 84 7........... 86 7....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Results numeric example ............................................................... 96 14 ..........................................................................2.......................................................5 NEN 13001 vs........................................2 NEN 2018:1983....3 ISO 4302:1981 ........1 Numeric example crane ..... 7...........2.................... 82 Numeric example............................... 84 7...........................................3.......................................................................................................................................................... 81 6..........................................................................................................................3 Support system ................................. 93 References ....1 NEN-EN 13001-2:2011.................. 79 6.................................... 83 7...................................................4 NEN-EN 1991-1-4:2005 .................... NEN 2018 .............................4 Wind tunnel vs.5............................................................................................. 92 Conclusion ...........................................1 Scale model .4 6.......... 88 7............................... NEN 2018 ............................... 87 7..............................2.....................3 Comparison of the results .................................. 89 7................................................................. 83 7.... Divergence and flutter ............................................................................. 8.................................................2........ 76 Wind tunnel research .........2 Wind flow .......................... NEN 13001 vs.................................... 80 6............................ 90 7........................................

1.4 the basic physic formula which all standards use. Therefor I’ve chosen to perform my literature study on: determine the wind load on a crane. The design of cranes is regulated by national and international standards. Chapter 3 deals with how the wind load is calculated. The goal of this literature assignment is increasing my knowledge on how the wind load on a large structure is determined. requirements and methods to prevent hazards of cranes by design and theoretical verification. Introduction In my research assignment I performed a wind tunnel test with cyclists. 1. This has generated my fascination for wind and wind effects. Paragraph 1. 15 . Chapter 2 deals with the wind flow. Standards specify general conditions. using standards.2 introduces the national and international standards used in this report. The main research questions are: How is the wind pressure determined and modelled? How are the shape coefficients of the structures member determined? How is the wind load on a crane determined? Which dynamical effects are possible to occur with large structures? The obligatory standards are of the utmost importance in a crane design. In this research two methods to determine the wind load acting on real cyclists have been investigated and compared.1. chapter 8. using the design wind pressure? Chapter 4 deals with how wind loads are combined with all other loads acting on a structure. The last chapter.2 Standards In the Netherlands the NEN organisation is responsible for producing the national standards. Chapter 6 pays attention to how wind tunnel research is used to determine the wind load on a crane. wind velocity and resulting wind pressure. gives a conclusion and answers to the research questions. Each designed crane must comply with the applicable standards. with added coefficients. so the standards are recurring parts of this report. The NEN is a member of the CEN (Comité Europeén de Normalisation) and of the global organisation ISO (International Organisation for Standardization). the use of these standards is obligatory. Chapter 7 gives an example of using the standards. If necessary the NEN-EN can even be translated into the Dutch language. making the standard into a NEN-EN. How is this determined and how do the standards come to a design wind pressure. Chapter 5 further examines the dynamic wind effects which are possible to occur.3 gives the basics about wind and 1. So which aerodynamic coefficients are used to calculate the wind load. When the CEN publishes a European standard (EN) the national organisation NEN can copy the standard. Being a mechanical engineering student my interest is not only in cycling but also in mechanical structures.

Wind: A sensible. Warm air expands resulting is a low pressure zones. 1.3 Wind What is wind? The Dutch van Dale dictionary gives the following meaning to the word wind. with a lower density. The national annex can add information to the NEN-EN and override the NEN-EN. When working with a standard one should always check if the correct. ASCE/SEI 7-10 2010 From ASCE 7 especially the wind velocity and wind pressures are interesting. These pressure differences are generated by the heating of the atmosphere by the sun. Because nature always seeks for equilibrium a flow is generated from the high pressure zone to the low pressure zone. Because of the rotation of the earth and the constant temperature differences between the poles and the equator there will never be equilibrium and therefore there will always be wind. Cold air results in high pressures zones. with a high density. current and applicable standard is being used. In the Netherland these four national standards deal specifically with wind loads on cranes: NEN-EN 13001-2:2011 en April 2011 NEN 2018:1983 October 1983 NEN 2022 March 1976 ISO 4302:1981 May 1981 More general national standards on wind loads on constructions and referred to in the standard for wind loads on cranes are: NEN-EN 1990+A1+A1/C2 December 2011 NEN-EN 1990+A1+A1/C2/NB December 2011 NEN-EN 1991-1-4:2005 nl April 2005 NEN-EN 1991-1-4+A1+C2/NB December 2011 The American national standard for Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures is produced by the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers).When needed a national annex (NB) can be added to the NEN-EN. wind. Wind flows are generated by the pressure differences in the earth’s atmosphere. 16 . A wind flow causes a pressure on a surface which is not parallel to its direction. mostly horizontal air flow in the atmosphere. since the east coast of America is well-known with heavy storms and hurricanes. Wind is an air flow with a certain density and velocity.

aerodynamic coefficient and projected area are determined differently in the standards.4 Basic wind load formula For calculating the wind loads all standard use the same basic physics formula q = wind pressure [N/m2] C = aerodynamic coefficient [ . But locally there are also pressure differences in a flow causing small fluctuations in the wind velocity and direction. velocity variations and direction changes. 17 . mean wind flow. a constant velocity and direction is called a laminar flow. A perfect smooth wind flow. Large pressure zones generate a large. with no local pressure differences. A turbulent wind flow is full of local pressure differences. The complexity differs between the standards. 1.The density and velocity of the wind flow determines the generated pressure. But this pressure is not always a constant value.] A = projected area [m2] The wind pressure.

Paragraph 2.1 Wind velocity modelling Establishing an appropriate design wind velocity is a critical step in the calculation of the wind load on a structure. Both wind pressure and velocity are dealt with in this chapter. Figure 1 Extreme wind velocities. which we would expect the atmosphere indeed has. month. the air density and the surrounding landscape en structures. Wind pressure This chapter deals with the methods used in the standards to determine the wind pressure caused by the wind velocity. The wind pressure is a function of the wind velocity. location and nearby structures. All recorded storms must be statistically independent. as a function of the return period. but also the distribution of the wind velocity as a whole.1 gives a general introduction on how a static design wind velocity is made out of dynamic wind velocity data. Paragraph 2.3 compares the standards. It requires the statistical analysis of historical data on recorded wind velocities. 2. It’s also possible to set a threshold value and to only record and count the storms which exceed this threshold value. This distribution has an upper limit. 1955). week etc. air density. The statistical analysis of the wind velocity is often done using the type III generalized extreme value distribution. Holmes (2001) 18 . direction. (Jenkinson. Paragraph 2. When looking at fatigue not only the maximum wind velocities is interesting. Figure 1 shows the wind speed recorded around Melbourne. The maximum wind velocity each year.2 contains the standards used.2. is recorded. Australia. Recording of wind velocities commonly takes place at 10meters above flat and open country.

[ R = return period of the wind velocity ] L = life time of the structure The wind velocity changes with the height above the ground. The boundary layer can extend up to 1km. Figure 3 shows the wind velocity distribution in a boundary layer. the higher frequencies differ. because integrating becomes much easier. derived by Prandtl and influenced by the air density and surface shear stress. A commonly used return period for the wind velocity is 50 years. This change in direction is small over the height range of normal structures and normally therefor neglected in wind engineering. for both methods. The turbulence and fluctuating nature of wind flows can have a significant effect on wind pressures. 19 . Holmes (2001) A layer of wind in which the wind velocity is increasing is known as the boundary layer and is caused by the influence of the earth’s surface to the wind flow. The mean wind velocity vector may locally change in direction and magnitude as a function of height. However a power law is often used to describe the wind velocity distribution.The risk of the wind velocity exceeding during the lifetime of a structure (r) can be calculated using the return period (R) and the lifetime (L). as a function of height. Figure 2 Wind velocities at 3 heights. drag coefficients and the resulting wind load on structures. The turbulence or gustiness of a wind flow is expressed as the standard deviation or root-meansquare of the wind velocity as a function of time. The lower frequencies are also quit the same at all heights. Figure 2 shows a graph of recorded wind velocities at three heights. The wind velocity distribution in the boundary layer is a logarithmic function. The gusty or turbulent nature of the wind is constant at all heights. The turbulence intensity is the ratio between the standard deviation and the mean wind velocity.

This assumption ignores pressure fluctuations over the structure. In reality the gustiness will not act simultaneously at all heights. g = peak factor and σv = standard deviation of the wind velocity. This leads to the assumption of quasi-static wind pressure.25 kg/m3 v = mean wind speed 20 . Large structure will never be entirely enveloped by a single gust. Holmes (2001) The effect of the turbulence to the wind velocity is expressed by the maximum gust wind velocity. resulting in a higher and more fluctuating wind loads. Which stands for the mean wind velocity times the gust factor. ρ = air density. common ρ = 1. the turbulence. The wind pressure (q) is calculated by multiplying the maximum gust wind velocity with the air density.Figure 3 Wind velocity (U) in the boundary layer. Topography can considerably increase the gust factor. . The effect a gust of wind has on a structure depends on the scale of the gust and the dimensions of the structure. G = gust factor. Small structures or small parts of a structure can be enveloped by a single gust.

Table 1 In-service wind states [NEN-EN 13001-2:2011 Table 4] Figure 4 Correlation of the mean wind velocity.2 Standards The following paragraph deals with how the common and crane specific wind loading standards determine the wind pressure. The Beaufort wind scale wind velocity is a 10minutes mean wind velocity. wind pressure and Beaufort scale [NEN-EN 13001-2:2011 Figure 7] 21 . 2 and 3). ( ) ( ) q(3) = in-service wind pressure at v(3) ρ = density of the air v(3) = gust wind velocity averaged over a period of 3s ( ) ̅ ̅ = mean wind velocity. resulting wind pressures ( ( )) and the Beaufort scale (X). mean wind velocities ( ̅ and ( )).2. 2. averaged over 10 minutes at in 10m height above flat ground or sea level 1.5 = factor between 3s and 10min mean wind velocity NEN-EN 13001-2 distinguishes the three in-service wind states light.1 NEN-EN 13001-2:2011 The NEN-EN 13001-2 standard divides wind loads in two categories: occasional in-service wind pressure q(3) and exceptional out-of-service wind pressure q(z). Table 1 and figure 4 show the three wind states (1. normal and heavy which depend on the type of crane. The in-service wind load is assumed to act perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of a crane member and constant at all heights.2.

0(1. Differs over regions in Europe (see figure 5).0 vm(z) = 10 min mean storm wind velocity in the height z vref = 10min.8155 for R = 50 years frec = 1.4)=1. ( ) q(z) = wind pressure ( ) v(z) = the 3s mean equivalent static out-of-service wind velocity ( ) ( ) [ ( ) [( ) ] ] frec = a factor depending on the recurrence (R) of the extreme out-of-service wind condition.12vref z = 25m 1. [NEN-EN 13001-2:2011 Table 6] Figure 6 shows a graph of the in-service wind pressure for wind state 2 and 3 and the out-of-service wind pressure for region C (inland of the Netherlands) and D (north-west coast of the Netherlands). The out-of-service wind load is calculated using the assumption that the wind blows horizontally at a velocity increasing with the height (z) above the surrounding ground level.0055.0(1.The design of the in-service wind load is based on the following requirement for the operation of the crane: If the wind velocity.68 v(25) = 1. R = 5 years  frec = 0. These wind velocities are 10minute mean wind velocities with a recurrence interval of 50 years.4)=2.4)=1.4)=1.78vref z = 200m 1. mean reference storm wind velocity. with K = 0.92vref Table 2 Reference storm wind velocities.0(1.13+0.1) vg = √ is a 3s gust amplitude beyond the 10min mean storm wind.96 v(100) = 1.72+0.0(0.11 v(200) = 1.53vref z = 100m 1.52+0. the crane shall be secured or its configuration shall be transformed into a safe configuration. The reference wind velocity is increased with a factor depending on the height of the crane and the recurrence.38+0. measured at the highest point of the crane tends to reach the wind state: heavy.23 v(1) = 1. ϕ8 = gust response factor (ϕ8 = 1. 10min mean. ( ) = simplified roughness coefficient Figure 5 and table 2 show the map of Europe with the four wind regions and the reference wind velocities in these regions. z = 1m 1. 22 .

500 1.000 1.500 2.and out-of-service NEN-EN 13001-2:2011 23 . NEN-EN 13001-2:2011 Wind pressure q [N/m2] 2.000 500 00 0 50 100 150 200 250 Height z [m] In-service state 2 normal In-service state 3 heavy Out-of-service region C Out-of-service region D Figure 6 Wind pressure in.Figure 5 Reference storm wind map of Europe [NEN-EN 13001-2:2011 Figure 12] Wind pressure.

5=9. The wind load is assumed to act horizontally. B and C). All wind velocities and wind pressure are based on a 3s mean wind velocity.2 NEN 2018:1983 NEN 2018 divides the wind load in wind and storm conditions. Because all wind velocities vw are based on 3s mean wind velocities they don’t correspond to the wind velocities in the Beaufort scale! Table 4 shows the Beaufort scale. depending on the height. q = wind pressure vw = wind velocity The value of the wind velocity is found in NEN 2018 table 20 and a function of the type of crane (A. Figure 7 shows a graph of the in-service wind pressure for crane type B and C and the out-of-service wind pressure for crane type B and C. Sw and Ss.2. 10min. mean wind velocity at which a crane type A may operate in is: 14/1. The storm wind corresponds to a wind force of 9 to 11. For crane type B the maximum wind force is 6 and for crane type C wind force 8. The maximum 10min.3m/s which corresponds to wind force 5. mean wind velocities and wind pressures. See table 3 for the table (in Dutch). height and wind condition (wind or storm).2. Table 3 Wind load on a crane [NEN 2018 table 20] 24 . in the least favourable direction.

NEN 2018 1.400 1.000 800 600 400 200 00 0 50 100 150 200 250 Height z [m] In-service crane type B In-service crane type C Out-of-service crane type B and C Figure 7 Wind pressure in.200 1.Table 4 Beaufort wind scale [NEN 2018 table 21] Wind pressure.and out-of-service NEN 2018 25 .600 Wind pressure q [N/m2] 1.

Table 5 In-service design wind velocity and pressure [ISO 4302] 26 . as a step function or a function of the height.2. The in-service wind pressure from ISO 4302 is identical to NEN 2018. p = wind pressure vs = wind speed The design wind speed for in-service conditions depends on the type of crane and is shown in table 5.2. So the in-service wind pressures in figure 7 also apply for ISO 4302.3 ISO 4302: 1981 The ISO 4302 standard uses a single methodology for calculating the wind pressure. ISO 4302 presumes that the wind load is applied in the least favourable direction. The wind pressure may be used as an constant. For the out-ofservice wind velocities ISO 4302 refers to appropriate national standards.

2.4 NEN-EN 1991-1-4:2005 NEN-EN 1991-1-4 also known as and referred to as: the Eurocode 1. At adjacent wind area’s a linear relation between both wind velocities over 5km length must be used to determine the wind velocity.0. Table 6 shows the fundamental 10min.02 that the wind actions are being exceeded of r=0. mean wind velocities for each wind area. This agrees with a recurrence period of R=50 years. at 10 meters height above the surface in a terrain category II.02. This is the 10 minute mean wind velocity.1] Figure 8 Wind area's in the Netherlands [NEN-EN 1991-14+A1+C2:2011/NB:2011 Figure NB.1] 27 . There is an annual risk of 0. is the general standard in Europe for wind actions. Table 6 Fundamental wind velocity [NENEN 1991-1-4+A1+C2:2011/NB:2011 Table NB.0 = fundamental wind velocity Figure 8 shows the three wind area’s in the Netherlands. The wind actions are characteristic values. Cdir = direction factor (Cdir = 1 in the Netherlands) Cseason = seasonal factor (Cseason = 1 in the Netherlands) vb. In this standard wind pressure calculations are much more complex and contain many factors. The wind velocity and pressure is made up by an average and fluctuating component. The average component is represented by mean wind velocity vm(z) and the fluctuating component by the turbulence intensity Iv(z). The fundamental wind velocity NEN-EN 1991-1-4 uses is vb. independent of direction and season.2.

( ) ( ) ( ) cr(z) = roughness coefficient co(z) = topography coefficient (co(z) = 1 in the Netherlands) The roughness coefficient cr(z) at height z is defined by two logarithmic profiles ( ) ( ) ( ( ( ) for ) for ) kr (terrain factor).The mean wind velocity vm(z) is the mean wind velocity as a function of the height. Table 7 Factors for the roughness coefficient cr [NENEN 1991-1-4+A1+C2:2011/NB:2011 Table NB. z0 (roughness length) and zmin are parameters depending on the terrain category. under influence of the environment. Figure 9 shows possible locations for terrain category 0 in the Netherlands.3] Figure 9 Possible locations for terrain category 0 (bold line) [NEN-EN 1991-14+A1+C2:2011/NB:2011 Figure NB. Table 7 shows these factors for three terrain categories in the Netherlands.4] 28 .

TC III(200) = 1.TC II(100) = 1.72 vm(200) = 1. ( ) ( ( ) ( ( )) ( ⁄ ) ( ) ) [ ( ) ( ) ] 29 .TC II(25) = 1.858 vm(1) = 0.626 vm(1) = 0.589 vm(1) = 0.38vb cr.60 vm(100) = 1.TC II(200) = 1.01 vm(25) = 1.209 TC III: kr = 0. without unsteady turbulence effects.872 vm(25) = 0.223 Roughness coefficients for four heights and all three terrain categories z=1 cr.TC 0(100) = 1.TC III(25) = 0.TC 0(200) = 1.72vb cr.01vb cr.TC 0(1) = 0.18 vm(100) = 1.34vb The resulting mean wind velocity vm(z) is a 3s mean wind velocity.TC II(1) = 0.Terrain factor kr for all three terrain categories TC 0: kr = 0.34 vm(200) = 1.589vb z = 25 cr.60vb cr.858vb cr.18vb z = 200 cr.TC 0(25) = 1.626vb cr.30vb cr.38 vm(25) = 1.30 vm(100) = 1.44 vm(200) = 1. Which at any height is the standard deviation of the wind velocity divided by the mean value of the wind velocity.TC III(100) = 1.TC III(1) = 0. Including the turbulence effects means calculating the turbulence intensity Iv(z). ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ⁄ kl = turbulence factor (kl = 1 in the Netherlands) ) The peak velocity pressure qp(z) contains the mean steady flow and the influence of the unsteady turbulent flow.44vb cr.872vb z = 100 cr.162 TC II: kr = 0.

Based on the wind areas and the terrain categories. Wind Area III and terrain category III Cities and towns in all Dutch provinces. Wind Area I and terrain category II Centre of the province of North Holland C. Wind Area I and terrain category 0 Den Helder B. Arnhem. Utrecht. A. etc. without the coast line: Breda.Example locations for each situation in the Netherlands. Zwolle. shown in figure 10. Wind Area III and terrain category II Uncultivated area’s in all Dutch provinces without a coast line H. Wind Area II and terrain category II Rotterdam. 30 . Figure 11 shows for eight possible wind situations the wind pressure. Wind Area II and terrain category 0 Rotterdam. Wind Area II and terrain category III Rotterdam. Maasvlakte 2 E. Botlek F. Figure 10 Example locations of WA en Terrain Cat. city centre G. Wind Area I and terrain category III Alkmaar D.

the Netherlands 31 .500 2.000 1.000 500 00 0 50 100 150 200 250 Height z [m] A: NEN 1991 WA I and Terrain Cat. NEN-EN 1991 3. III G: NEN 1991 WA III and Terrain Cat.500 1.000 Wind pressure q [N/m2] 2. II C: NEN 1991 WA I and Terrain Cat. II F: NEN 1991 WA II and Terrain Cat. 0 E: NEN 1991 WA II and Terrain Cat. III Figure 11 Wind pressure Eurocode 1. II H: NEN 1991 WA III and Terrain Cat. III D: NEN 1991 WA II and Terrain Cat.Wind pressure. 0 B: NEN 1991 WA I and Terrain Cat.

Figure 12 and 13 show a map of the USA with the corresponding basic wind velocities. The basic wind speed is specified by ASCE 7 as a 3s gust wind speed at 10m height in open terrain with a 3% probability of exceedence in 50 years. a value of 1 or less V = basic wind speed The basic wind speed is determined by the risk category of the structure. 0. The wind speed is in: miles per hour (meter per second).613 = a constant for air density [kg/m3]. for a crane category risk category: III + IV. Figure 12 Basic wind speed for cat. like mountainous terrain. III + IV [ASCE 7-10.2.5 ASCE/SEI 7-10 The American standard describes wind pressure as a function which is mostly influenced by the basic wind speed (V). may be changed when sufficient climatic data is available to justify the change Kz = velocity pressure exposure coefficient Kzt = topographic factor Kd = wind directionality factor.5-1B] 32 . Special regions.2. Figure 26. gorges and special wind regions need to be examined for unusual wind conditions.

99 ⁄ ⁄ for z < 5m (z = structures height) for 5m < z < 213. The wind directionality factor depends on the structure type and can be found in ASCE/SEI 7-10. For port side cranes an exposure category D is used.36m The topographic factor takes wind velocity change due to slopes and hills into account. ( ⁄ ) ( ⁄ ) z = 1m Kz = 1. III + IV [ASCE 7-10.38 z = 100m Kz = 1.A B C Figure 13 Basic wind speed for cat. 33 .B and C for wind pressure calculations In ASCE 7 all factors increase the wind pressure. Figure 26. For flat and open country a value of 1 is used. For a crane a conservative value would be 0.05 z = 25m Kz = 1. The velocity pressure exposure coefficient is a function of the surface roughness and the structures height. Table 26.76 z = 200m Kz = 1.5-1B] + Locations A.6-1.95. In the Eurocode all factors increase the wind velocity.

000 5. Figure 14 shows the wind pressure for three possible locations (see figure 13): A.The gust-effect factor is not included in the calculation of the wind pressure but in the calculation of the resulting wind force.000 2.000 4. ASCE 7-10. A crane is a flexible and/or dynamically sensitive structure so the gust-effect factor needs to be hand calculated.000 00 0 50 100 150 200 250 Height z [m] A: ASCE 7-10 Inland B: ASCE 7-10 East Coast C: ASCE 7-10 Florida Figure 14 Wind pressure.000 Wind pressure q [N/m2] 8. ASCE 7-10 34 .000 7. Inland Basic wind velocity 54m/s B. East coast Basic wind velocity 72m/s C.000 1. III and IV 10. risk cat.000 3.000 9.000 6. Florida Basic wind velocity 89m/s Wind pressure.

NEN-EN 13001-2. Holmes (2001) From table 8 you can conclude that the factor between the 3s mean wind velocity and 10min mean wind velocity should be 1. NEN 2018 and ISO 4302 make a distinction between in-service wind pressure and out-of-service wind pressure. NEN-EN 13001-2. for risk cat. It’s clear that the much higher basic wind velocity in America results in a much higher wind pressure. a general classification system for design wind speeds and levels should be generated.5. The used wind velocity defers. Because of the great differences between the defined basic wind velocities in the standards around the world. Because wind pressure is the square of the wind velocity the differences are even clearer between the Dutch and American standards. generated by Holmes (2001). wind pressure The standards display great similarity in wind pressures.2. 35 . NEN-EN 13001-2 uses a factor 1.6.3 Comparison of the standards. NEN 2018 and ASCE 7 uses a gust wind velocity averaged over a period of 3s. Mainly because of the completely different climate and the possibility off hurricanes. III and IV are much higher than the Dutch. but still differ. Table 8 Possible international wind velocity distribution.5 . All Dutch standards use similar wind velocities. maximum. The NEN-EN 1991-1-4 and ASCE 7 only provides the out-of-service. Table 9 shows a comparison of the (out-of-service) basic wind velocities in both 3s and 10min mean value used in the paragraph 2.1. when using the same average time.2. The American wind velocities. NEN-EN 1991-1-4 and NEN-EN 13001-2 also add the fluctuating effect of turbulence to the wind velocity or resulting pressure. Figure 15 shows a comparison of the out-of-service wind pressures for the Dutch standards and for the American. which is increased with a factor to a 3s mean wind velocity. wind pressure. Table 8 shows such a possible system. The wind pressure in all standards is calculated using the multiplication of wind velocity and air density. NEN-EN 1991-1-4 uses a fundamental wind velocity which is averaged over 10 minutes. Such a system could create an unambiguous and clearly defined basic wind velocity for different levels or categories.

5 36.25kg/m3 is used.3 48.0 z > 100m 20 < z < 100 z < 20 1991 Eurocode 1 44. Without the fluctuating component the Eurocode 1 wind pressure is similar to the NEN 2018 wind pressure.5 27.093 36 . This mainly because the newer standards increase the wind pressure with a fluctuating component.23kg/m3.0 Florida East coast Inland 13001 In all Dutch standards an air density of ρ=1.0 42. In the American ρ=1. A cold and dry frizzing winter day results in a 30% higher wind pressure than a warm and moist summer day. When a crane is placed on a location with great diversity in weather multiple air densities should be investigated.5 Wind Area I Wind Area II Wind Area III ASCE 7-10 89.0 32.8 29.0 28.0 36.0 24.The difference between the older NEN2018 and the newer NEN 13001 and the Eurocode 1 is quite big.418 100% humidity ρ=1. 3s and 10min mean values Wind velocity 3s [m/s] 10min [m/s] 48.0 Region C 2018 46.0 30. In figure 16 the out-of-service wind pressure of NEN 2018 and the Eurocode 1 wind pressure with and without the fluctuating component are shown.0 54.0 24.0 59. Clearly showing that the newer standards use newer wind models which should result in more accurate wind modelling.0 72.0 36. Table 9 Basic wind velocities.0 Region D 42.7 28.3 40. -25˚C sea level 40˚C sea level ρ=1.

500 3.000 2.000 1.000 3.000 1.500 1.500 2. 0 NEN 1991 WA II and Terrain Cat. 0 without turbulence NEN 1991 WA I and Terrain cat. II without turbulence NEN 2018 out-of-service Figure 16 Wind pressure. with and without the fluctuating component 37 . NEN 13001.000 500 00 0 50 100 150 200 250 Height z [m] NEN 1991 WA I and Terrain Cat. NEN 2018 and ASCE 7-10 Wind pressure q [N/m2] 4. II NEN 1991 WA 1 and Terrain cat.500 2.Wind pressure. the Dutch and American standards Wind pressure.000 500 00 0 50 100 150 200 250 Height z [m] NEN 13001 out-of-service C NEN 13001 out-of-service D NEN 2018 out-of-service NEN 1991 WA I and Terrain Cat. II ASCE 7-10 Inland Figure 15 Wind pressure. 0 NEN 1991 WA I and Terrain Cat. NEN 1991.500 1. NEN 2018 and Eurocode with and without fluctuating component Wind pressure q [N/m2] 3.000 2.

The crane is vertically divided in multiple sections for which one general aero dynamical coefficient needs to be determined. projected areas. Especially for all natural frequencies below 1Hz. The amount of resonant response of a structure depends on the aerodynamic or structural damping. When the quasi-static wind pressure is used a quasi-static wind load is calculated. at moderate wind loads. multiple coefficient need to be determined to calculated the force generated by the wind pressure.3. reduction factors. Therefor the wind load must be multiplied with a dynamic constant which accounts for the dynamic effects. Due to the turbulent nature of wind flows.3. Paragraph 3. have a significant contribution to the fatigue load of a structure. When this fluctuating frequency resembles the natural frequency of the structure. Paragraph 3. The magnitude of the structural forces generated by the response depend on the mass. The calculated wind load is including the safety factor for stability. The wind load on the crane is determined in the feathering position (position a) and with the boom perpendicular to the wind flow (position b). The crane shown in figure 17 will be transformed into a Hotel. 3. or parts of it. This will change the purpose of the crane into a hotel and therefor also the design wind load. These coefficients contain aerodynamic shape constants. The magnitude of the wind force depends on the frontal area of the structure and its shape. Wind load This chapter deals with determine the wind load. there is a potential to a resonant response. shielding factors etc.1 Wind load modelling The established wind pressure is used to determine the resulting wind force on a structure.2 describes an example crane which is used to visualize the standards which are described in paragraph 3. Figure 18 and 19 show the dimensions of the crane hotel. damping and stiffness of the structure. Paragraph 3. When the wind pressure in known as a constant or as a function of the height. The turbulent nature of wind flows can also.1 gives a general introduction on how the wind load is calculated. Figure 17 Crane Hotel Amsterdam 38 .4 compares the standards. All without the added minute structure for the hotel. the aerodynamic coefficient. 3. Chapter 5 will go deeper into dynamical behaviour. wind loads will act highly fluctuating.2 Wind load example: Crane hotel The wind load standards in this chapter will be shown together with an example based on a crane located in Amsterdam.

Figure 18 Dimensions crane hotel, including the divided area's

39

Figure 19 Crane hotel with area A7b within the green box

40

All sections are described below. The dimensions are rough estimates based on computer drawings.
Exact dimensions where not obtained. The purpose of this example is to provide a practical application
of the abstract standards, so the lack of exact and detailed dimension is no problem.
Section A1

Area A1 is the rail support system of the crane. All four support systems have

an area of 13.3m2 (total 53.2m2) and an average height of 0.792m above ground. Dimensions: 12m
long, 2m high, 1m depth and a spacing between the rails of 10m.
Section A2

Area A2 is a horizontal beam connecting the lower parts of the legs. One on

each side with an area of 5.1m2 (total 10.2m2) and an average height of 2.634m. Dimensions: 15m
long, 1,5m high, 1m depth and a spacing between the beams of 10m.
Section A3

Area A3 are the legs of the crane. Each leg has an area of 9.2m2 (total

36.8m2) with an average height of 5.463m. Dimensions: 10m long and 2.5m wide. Spacing of 10m.
Section A4

Area A4 is the rotational part of the crane. It’s simplified to a closed box with

an area of 30.7m2 with an average height of 9.947m Dimensions 10m wide and 6m high.
Section A5

Area A5 is the tower part which is not converted into the hotel rooms. It

contains a plate structure at the core and a lattice structure. The projected area is: 45.3m2 and the
enclosed area is: 77.3m2 all at an average height of 17.8m. Dimensions: Height 15m, width 8m and
beam width 1m.
Section A6

Area A6 is the tower part which contains the hotel rooms. It’s simplified to

one closed box. Area of 75.6m2 at an average height of 34.478m. Dimensions Height 15m and width
8m.
Section A7a

Area A7a is the top beam in feathering position and simplified as on big box

(figure 18). Area 24.6m2 at an average height of 44.374m. Dimensions Height 10m and width 8m.
Because the top beam has a depth of over 60m there are many member shielding behind each other
in the feathering position. These shielded members contribute to the wind load, to take this into
account the projected area is doubled.
Section A7b

Area A7b is the top beam perpendicular to the wind flow, as shown in figure

19. The top beam is a lattice structure, just like section A5, with an enclosed area of 267m2 and a
projected area of 85m2 at an average height of 44.374m. A second lattice frame is shielding 2m
downstream of the first lattice frame. All dimensions for area A7b have been obtained from the
original microfilm drawings of the crane. Sadly these scanned drawings lack resolution so some
dimensions are determined roughly.

41

ψ = reduction factor.3.3.5 The aerodynamic slenderness λ = la / d la = aerodynamic length of a member d = characteristic dimension l0 = length of the member = relative aerodynamic length. Figure 20 Relative aerodynamic length [NEN-EN 13001 Table A. tables and graphs to determine the aerodynamic coefficient (ca) and characteristic area (A). 3. table A. For instance results from CFD or wind tunnel testing. can be a function of the Reynolds number. NEN-EN 13001-2. Aerodynamic coefficients may also be derived from theoretical or experimental methods.3 Standards The following paragraph deal with the common and crane specific wind loading standards which are currently active in the Netherlands.1 NEN-EN 13001-2:2011 Annex A in NEN-EN 13001-2 provides a method. See figure 20.1] 42 .2 – A. depends on the aerodynamic slenderness (λ) and solidity ratio (ϕ) see figure 22 c0 = aerodynamic coefficient of a member with infinite length.

2] Figure 22 Reduction factor [NEN-EN13001-2. This results in a non-linearly relation between the wind load and the wind pressure. v = v(3) or v(z) When a crane consists of multiple members behind each other shielding can become in issue. where a = distance between the members.The solidity ratio (see figure 21) ∑ ⁄ AJ = area of the individual members of a lattice structure Ac = enclosed area of a lattice structure Figure 21 Solidity ratio of a lattice structure member [NEN-EN 13001 Figure A. Figure A. 43 . d = characteristic dimension (see figure 23).1] The aerodynamic coefficients of round shapes (for instance lattice structures) are a function of the Reynolds number (Re). The shielding factor (η) depends on the solidarity and the spacing ratio a/d. Figure 24 shows the shielding factor.

6] Figure 24 NEN-EN 13001-2.9. Shielding factor The characteristic area A of the whole structure η = shielding factor nm = number of parallel and identical members A1 = characteristic area of the first member The wind load acting perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of a crane member in-service ( ) The wind load acting perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of a crane member out-of-service ( ) 44 . Figure A.Figure 23 Multiple arrangement of structural members [segment of: NEN-EN 13001 Table A.

45 . for A2 and A3 it is infinite. the shielding factor and aero dynamical coefficients.3m2 resulting in a solidity of 0. because the top beam has an depth of over 60meters. NEN 13001 Solidity For all section except A5 and A7b the solidity is 1. Shown in figure 25.3m divided by the projected area of 45. The relative aerodynamic length of sections A1. For section A7b the projected area is increased because a second identical lattice frame is 2m downstream. Reduction factor Using figure 22 and the calculated solidity and slenderness the reduction factor has been determined. For A7b the solidity is 0. See figure 26 for how the shielding factors are determined using NEN 13001-2 figure A. Table 10 Wind load crane hotel. For section A7a the projected area is doubled. cross sections and within the structure. The projected area of A5 is increased with 12% because the framework at the back side is largely shielded but not entirely. Figure 25 – 28 show segments of tables form NEN 13001 used for the reduction factor.9. A4 – A7a and A7b is 1. Section A5 has an enclosed area of 2 77.59. Shielding factor The shielding factor is determined using the distance between the members and figure 24. Slenderness The slenderness of the members and elements of each section depends on the dimensions.32. with 30%.For the crane hotel the resulting wind loads are shown in table 10 including all coefficients used for calculating. For section A1 and A3 the projected area is reduced because of shielding of the front rail support and legs.

See chapter 4. A7a and A7b NEN 13001 Table A. NEN 13001 is a very detailed standard with extensive table off aerodynamic coefficients.4 has been used.5 A2: b/d=0. see figure 28. A5. Figure 25 Reduction factor for the crane hotel. NEN 13001 46 . So more detailed crane sections could lead to a more accurate and perhaps reduced wind load.A7a and A7b: b/d=1 Wind pressure For the calculations a wind region D and C has been used to determine the wind pressure q (figure 6). A4.7 A3: b/d=1 A4 .16. NEN 13001 Figure 26 Shielding factor for the crane hotel. A2. Because the crane structure is simplified to seven sections not much detail is left. see figure 27. Safety factor For the safety factor load combination C2 from NEN 13001 Table 11 has been used: 1. A5. A1: b/d=0.3 have been used. For section A3 NEN 13001 Table A.Basic aerodynamic coefficients For sections A1.

3 Figure 28 Segment of: NEN 13001 Table A.4 47 .Figure 27 Segment of: NEN 13001 Table A.

2 NEN 2018:1983 The aerodynamic coefficients (C) in NEN 2018 are a function of the aerodynamic slenderness and presented in a table. function of the slenderness λ η = reduction factor. ⁄ A = area of the individual members of a lattice structure [m2] Ae = enclosed area of a lattice structure [m2] The wind load acting horizontally in the least favourable direction Table 11 NEN 2018. ( ) C = aerodynamic coefficient. table 22. The aerodynamic slenderness λa = l / h or l/D l = length of a member h = height of the member perpendicular to the wind direction D = Outside diameter of the member When the crane consists of multiple members behind each other a reduction factor is applied to the aerodynamic coefficient. if obtained by wind tunnel experiments. distance (same as between the members b and the height of the member h. function of the solidity ratio NEN 13001).3. See figure 29 for the graph. table 22.3. NEN 2018. aerodynamic coefficients 48 . See table 11 (in Dutch). The reduction factor can be found in NEN 2018 table 23 and NEN 2018 figure 13. Favourable aerodynamic coefficients may be applied.

Shielding factor The shielding factor is determined using the distance between the members. reduction factor For the crane hotel the resulting wind loads are shown in table 12 including all coefficients used to calculate. Table 12 shows the used aerodynamic coefficients. cross sections and within the structure.3m2 resulting in a solidity of 0. 49 .59. Section A5 has an enclosed area of 77. For section A1 and A3 the projected area is reduced because of shielding of the front rail support and legs.32.3m2 divided by the projected area of 45. NEN 2018 Solidity For all sections except A5 and A7b the solidity is 1. Table 12 Wind load crane hotel. Slenderness The slenderness of the members and elements of each section depends on the dimensions. The projected area of A5 is increased with 12% because the framework at the back side is largely shielded but not entirely.Figure 29 NEN 2018: figure 13. For A7b the solidity is 0.

For the aerodynamic coefficients of section A1. table 22] 50 . A3. The slenderness and b/d ratio determines the value. A7a and A7b are simplified to a single lattice structure. NEN 2018 and NEN 13001 use an identical graph for the shielding factors. with 30%.For section A7a the projected area is doubled. A4 and A5 a simplified a boxed member / flat plate has been used.5. Section A2 is simplified as a boxed section with a h/b of 1. Sections A5. Table 13 Aerodynamic coefficients used for the crane hotel [NEN 2018.4 has been used for cranes with stowing devices. Basic aerodynamic coefficients For all sections table 13 shows the aerodynamic coefficients used. See figure 26 for how the shielding factors are determined. Wind pressure For calculations the out-of-service wind pressure from NEN 2018 (figure 7) has been used. Safety factor For the safety factor the general factor 1. See chapter 4. because the top beam has a depth of over 60meters. For section A7b the projected area is increased because a second identical lattice frame is 2m downstream.

Force coefficients Table 15 ISO 4302-1981. ⁄ A = area of the individual members of a lattice structure [m2] Ae = enclosed area of a lattice structure [m2] The wind load acting in the least favourable direction The crane hotel example is skipped because ISO 4302 tables are identical to NEN 2018.3 ISO 4302:1981 The aerodynamic coefficients (Cf) in ISO 4302 are a function of the aerodynamic slenderness and presented in ISO 4302. function of the slenderness λ η = shielding factor. spacing ratio: distance between the members a and the height of the member b. ( ) C = aerodynamic coefficient. Shielding factors 51 . The reduction factor can be found in ISO 4302. table 2. Table 3. Table 14 ISO 4302-1981. Table 2. function of the solidity ratio . See table 4. Aerodynamic coefficients obtained by wind tunnel or full scale tests may also be used. When the crane consists of multiple members behind each other a reduction factor (shielding factor η) is applied to the aerodynamic coefficient.3. See table 5.3. table 3.

4 NEN-EN 1991-1-4:2005 The Eurocode 1 provides two methods to determine the wind load. In both methods the peak velocity pressure qp(z) is calculated for a reference height ze. Figure 30 NEN-EN 1991-1-4. area parallel to wind 52 . function of reference height ze Afr = friction area.3. Figure 30 shows how the reference height is determined and the resulting peak velocity pressure distribution over the structure.3. reference height ze Indirect method ∑ [ ( ) ] ∑ [ ( ) ] ( ) Direct method ∑ [ ( ) ] cscd = structural factor cpe = external pressure coefficient cpi = internal pressure coefficient cfr = friction coefficient cf = force coefficient Aref =reference area.4. Or directly by force coefficients appropriate to the whole structure. Indirectly by summing the components of surface pressures and friction stresses over the structure. The value of the reference height depends on the ratio between the width and height of the structure. Figure 7.

end-effect factor The reference area Aref is the projected or frontal area b = characteristic diameter l = length of the element Graphs for the aerodynamic coefficient of a rectangle cross section and the reduction factors for corner are given in figure 31 and 32. The direct method is further explained.0 = aerodynamic coefficient of a member with sharp corners and infinite length ψr = reduction factor which accounts for rounding of corners ψλ = reduction factor which accounts for the length of the element. The structural factor cscd accounts for the combined effect of the non-simultaneous action of peak wind pressures over faces of the structure (size effect = cs) and the vibration of the structure in its fundamental mode due to the action of turbulence (dynamic response = cd). When slender buildings (h/d > 4) are arranged in groups it is possible upwind structures generate turbulent wakes onto downwind structures and increasing their dynamic response.2 for more information about the structural factor. the end-effect factor. See paragraph 5. 1999). wind tunnel tests or specialists’ advice is recommended. (ϕ) and the aerodynamic slenderness (λ). which is the case for cranes. cf. The natural frequency of a reasonably stiff container crane is in the range of f = 0. When the natural frequency of the structure is less than 1 Hz or unknown.Verschoof. same as NEN 13001. The NEN-EN 1991-1-4 does not supply pressure coefficients for structural elements with rectangular sections. Figure 33 shows the graph of the ψλ. A = area of the individual members of a lattice structure [m2] ⁄ Ac = enclosed area of a lattice structure [m2] ⁄ Cλ = Constant from NEN-EN 1991-1-4 table 7.16 (see table 16) 53 . depends on the solidity ratio. This is called wake buffeting.Friction forces may be ignored when the swept area is less than four times the total area of windward and leeward surfaces. The aero dynamic coefficients are called force coefficients given in multiple tables in the Eurocode 1. The reduction factor which accounts for the length of the element ψλ.70Hz (J.

aerodynamic coefficient Figure 32 NEN-EN 1991-1-4.23.Figure 31 NEN-EN 1991-1-4. Figure 7.24. end-effect factor 54 . Figure 7. reduction factor corners Figure 33 NEN-EN 1991-1-4. Figure 7.36.

All are shown in table 17 on the next page. table 7.Table 16 Effective slenderness [NEN-EN 1991-1-4.16] For the crane hotel the resulting wind loads are calculated for wind area I and II and two terrain categories. including all coefficients used to calculate. 55 .

For A7b the solidity is 0. terrain category II and III Solidity For all sections except A5 and A7b the solidity is 1. Slenderness The slenderness of the members and elements of each section depends on the dimensions. 56 .3m divided by the projected area of 45. NEN-EN 1991-1-4.32. Reduction factor Using figure 33 and the calculated solidity and slenderness the reduction factor has been determined. cross sections and within the structure.59. No reduction has been applied for rounded corners.Table 17 Wind load crane hotel. Section A5 has an enclosed area 2 of 77.3m2 resulting in a solidity of 0. Table 16 shows how the slenderness is determined.

A4 and A6 a simplified boxed section has been used without rounded corners (see figure 31). Safety factor For the safety factor the general safety factor from Eurocode 0 is 1. See chapter 4. Section A5.Shielding factor The shielding factor is not described in the Eurocode so no reductions on the areas have been made. because the top beam has a depth of over 60meters.5 A2: d/b=0.5. For section A5 and A7b an increase in the projected area has been made using the shielding factors form NEN 13001-2. Figure 34 Aerodynamic coefficient of a lattice structure [NEN-EN 1991-1-4 Figure 7. B and C. Basic aerodynamic coefficients For the aerodynamic coefficients of sections A1. A7a and A7b are simplified to a lattice structure (see figure 34). see figure 10 and 11.34] 57 . A2.7).7 A4 and A6: d/b=1 Wind pressure For the calculations of the out-of-service wind pressure a wind area I and terrain catergory II and III have been used. Section A3 is simplified to a sharp edged element (see NEN-EN 1991-1-4 chapter 7. has been used. For section A7a the projected area is doubled. A1: d/b=0.

The aerodynamic slenderness (λ) is a constant which allows for the reducing resistance of the wind flow on a structure caused by the end effects and the ground of the structure. surface roughness and orientation. but the aerodynamic length dived by the characteristic diameter. The basic aerodynamic coefficient in the newer standards is spread over multiple tables and graphs depending on the cross section. For specific cross sections the aerodynamic coefficient is also a function of the Reynolds number. surface roughness and orientation to the wind direction. cross section. surface roughness. Both NEN-EN 1991-1-4 and NEN-EN 13001-2 provide similar basic aerodynamic coefficients. wind load The standards display great diversity in wind loads. the projected area and the applied wind pressure. Both NEN-EN 1991-1-4 and NEN-EN 13001 use the same method and values to determine the aerodynamic length and the resulting aerodynamic slenderness (see figure 20 and table 16). Both NEN-EN 1991-1-4 and NEN-EN 13001-2 use the same graph and values for determine the resulting reduction factor of the aerodynamic coefficient (see figure 22 and 33). In the newer standards the aerodynamic coefficient is also influenced by the solidity ratio (φ). the smaller the resulting aerodynamic coefficient will be. The bigger the solidity ratio of a structure. and roundness of the corners and orientation of the cross section to the wind direction. Reynolds number. The aerodynamic coefficient in NEN-EN 1991-1-4 and NEN-EN 13001-2 is a function of at least the aerodynamic slenderness. Both ISO 4302 and NEN 2018 allow the usage of aerodynamic coefficient obtained from wind tunnel experiments. the differences are made by the amount of parameters used to fine-tune the aerodynamic coefficient. aerodynamic length and the solidity ratio.3. but NEN-EN 13001-2 contains the most extended tables and graphs of aerodynamic coefficients. The older standards (ISO 4302:1981 and NEN 2018:1983) provide one single table of aerodynamic coefficients. Especially the aerodynamic coefficient of round cross sections is highly dependable on the Reynolds number. which in both standards contains exactly the same data. In the newer standards the aerodynamic slenderness is not the ratio between the length divided by the characteristic diameter.4 Comparison of the standards. The aerodynamic coefficient in ISO 4302 and NEN 2018 is a function of the aerodynamic slenderness and the cross section of the member. ( ) ( ) 58 . The newer standards (NEN-EN 1991-1-4:2005 and NEN-EN 13001-2:2011) provide multiple tables and a more extensive method to determine the aerodynamic coefficients.

Large structure will never be entirely enveloped by a single gust. the resulting wind load will only differ because of difference in wind pressures. The American ASCE 7 standard does not specify a factor for dynamic response but states that: When dynamic effects occur. using a shielding factor (η). ISO 4302. 59 . Table 19 shows an overview of all the resulting wind loads from all standards for the crane hotel. Small structures or small parts of a structure can be enveloped by a single gust. NEN 2018 and NEN-EN 13001-2 all consider this effect. see figure 24 and 29 and table 15. The shielding factor of a member can reduce the aerodynamic coefficient or characteristic area of the considered member. The shielding factor is.In all four standards the characteristic area. NEN 1991-1-4 finally also multiplies the wind load with the dynamic response (cd). the shielding of the member influences the resulting wind load on the total structure. NEN 2018 and NEN-EN 13001-2 all use the same graph and values to determine the shielding factor. When comparing all formulas used in the methods in the four standards. resulting in loads perpendicular to the wind direction the use of wind tunnel testing is advised. Table 20 compares all maximum and minimum CdA. in all three standards. The newer standards contain a more extensive library of data. F and M values and compares the boom in feathering positions with the boom perpendicular position. a function of the distance between the parallel members and the solidity ratio. The NEN-EN 1991-1-4 standard multiplies the wind load with a structural factor which takes the structures size. ISO 4302. reference area. NEN-EN 1991-1-4 calls it the size effect (cs). projected area or frontal area is defined by sum of the member length and the characteristic diameter. resulting in a higher and more fluctuating wind loads. When a structure contains of multiple members parallel behind each other. But when using simple cross sections. The effect a gust of wind has on a structure depends on the scale of the gust and the dimensions of the structure. In chapter 5 the possible dynamic effects are described. for more situations and cross sections types resulting in a more accurate wind load. as shown in figure 15. the real difference is made by the complexity of the determination of the wind pressure distribution and the aerodynamic coefficient.

overview of all three standards Table 20 Comparison of the maximum and minimum values between the parameters and crane orientations.Table 19 Wind load crane hotel. 60 .

but near the river so there is a mix in wind area’s and terrain categories. 61 .4. The crane is positions in the centre of Amsterdam. The difference in wind load between both positions is more than 25-32% because the wind pressure increases with height and the difference in CdA between both positions is made at an average height of 44m. compared to all other values. Eurocode 1 and NEN 2018 is partly created by the use of two wind area’s or terrain categories. The difference between both boom positions has grown even more to 64-78%. depending on the wind direction. Changing the position of the boom increases the wind load with 3440%. NEN 13001 and NEN 2018 are crane specific standard with safety factors for stability between 1. The increased wind load changes at the highest point and therefore strongly changed the moment M. North-east of the river Het IJ (source: Google Maps) The maximum difference in CdA values is small (3-9%). 42-52%. Changing the position of the boom increases the CdA significantly with 25-32%. the safety factor is even higher. Figure 35 shows the position of the crane.5. with humans. Figure 35 Position of the crane hotel in Amsterdam. The differences in wind load F are enormous. Because the Eurocode is a standard for building.The difference between NEN 13001.161. This is caused by the usage of multiple wind area’s and terrain categories. 43-50%. The differences in wind moment M are of the same magnitude as the wind load F. 1.

It shows that for one position the differences between the CdA. 62 .Table 21 Comparison of the maximum and minimum values between the parameters and crane orientations. F and M values have reduced dramatically.5. Table 22 Comparison of the maximum and minimum values between the parameters and crane orientations. WA I and TC III. Table 20 provides the same CdA data as table 18 and 19. but with one wind pressure and safety factor. form Eurocode 1: Wind Area II and Terrain Catergory II. Table 21 again compares all maximum and minimum CdA. But the difference between both feathering and perpendicular boom position remain. Safety factor 1. WA II and TC II. With all equal wind pressure and safety factor form: Eurocode 1. F and M values and compares the boom in feathering positions with the boom perpendicular position. With all equal wind pressure and safety factor form: Eurocode 1.

Eurocode 0. For cranes loss of static equilibrium (EQU) is very important. In NEN-EN 13001 all possible loads are categorized as regular. In the load combinations both the ultimate limit states and the stability have their own factors to be added to the loads. occasional (in-service wind loads) and exceptional (out-of-service wind loads) loads. But when checking the structure for stability the wind load in increased in the unfavorable direction. 63 . Out-of-service wind loads are variable actions. Design wind load In chapter three the procedure to determine the wind load is explained. For wind loads this is a 50 years return period. In-service wind loads can be permanent actions but are mostly variable actions. NEN-EN 13001 is a standard specific for crane design so in this standard the load combinations are even more focused on crane design than in the more general Eurocode standards and there for described more detailed. But when designing a crane the wind load is not the only load which acts on the crane’s structure. All possible loads or actions are classified by their variation in time in three groups: Permanent actions (G). All loads are combined to getter in a load case. But with large variability the characteristic value will contain a maximum upper value and a minimum lower value. Out-of-service it’s at least: Own weight of the structure + out-of-service wind load + etc.5 ψ1 = 0. Multiple ultimate limit states have to be investigated. The main representative of the wind load action (F) is the characteristic value of the wind load action.2 ψ2 = 0 So when checking a structure for its ultimate limit states the wind load is reduced by the factor. defines load cases and multiplication factors for NEN-EN 1991-1-4. For variable actions (Q) an upper value is used with an intended probability of not being exceeded during a specific reference period.1 = 1.4. This value is a constant when the variance is small. The nation annex of the Eurocode 0 gives the following factors Ψ factors for wind loads on buildings ψ0 = 0 Design values for EQU φQ. It’s always a combination of loads. In-service it’s at least: Own weight of the structure + hoisting load + accelerations + in-service wind load + etc. When verifying a structure for ultimate limit states the product of the variable action (Q) and the multiplication factor ψ is used. Variable actions (Q) and Accidental actions (A). but not all loads have an equal contribution to the total load. but in case of hurricanes it can very well be an accidental action. NEN-EN 1990.

4 must be used.22 for in-service wind loads.16-1.34 Load combination C Overall safety factor φf = 1.2-1. If the crane is only stable with the stabilizers or there are none a factor of 1. load combination C NEN 2022 is a national standard from 1976 dealing only with crane stability.22 for in-service wind loads. But for out-of-service storm winds a factor of 1. load combination C Exceptional loads Partial safety factor φp = 1.4 is multiplied with the wind load. For non-mobile cranes inservice wind and out-of-service storm wind are described. which without the crane is also stable and they can be fitted within 5 minutes. load combination B Safety factor φ = 1.1-1. load combination B Partial safety factor φp = 1. load combination C Load combination B Overall safety factor φf = 1.NEN-EN 13001 gives the following factors for ultimate limit states Occasional loads Partial safety factor φp = 1.2 may be used. 64 . If the crane is equipped with stabilizers.16 for in-service wind loads.16 for out-of-service wind loads. For in-service wind no factor is added to the wind load.22 NEN-EN 13001 gives the following factors for rigid body stability Occasional loads Safety factor φ = 1. a factor of 1.0-1.16 for in-service wind loads. load combination C Exceptional loads Safety factor φ = 1.16 for out-of-service wind loads.

known in physics and applicable for cranes. Figure 36 Motions of dynamic wind effects 65 .5. this may lead to sufficient deflection. 3. This can generate resonances. vortex shedding.3. Paragraph 5. When the frequency of the wind equals the natural frequency of the structure and enough energy is absorbed. galloping and flutter. In a dynamic situation the deflections are no longer directly related to the load. 1. which usually occurs at the natural frequency of the structure. 5. 2. Fluctuating nature of the wind velocity. Dynamic behaviour can happen for three reasons. Dynamic wind effects This chapter deals with the dynamic effects which could occur under wind loading. Examples are galloping and flutter. When the structures shape generates an oscillatory flow pattern. Figure 36 shows the types of motions which belong to buffeting. Examples are vortex shedding. possibly at the natural frequency of the structure. the maximum strain is directly proportional to the maximum load. Because the oscillation is wind generated. Buffeting.2 briefly introduces the structural factor used in NEN-EN 1991-1-4 and paragraph 5.3 deals with the dynamic wind effects and vibrations. When the motion of the structure increases the wind load it’s considered Aero-elastic. its frequency is a function of the wind velocity. paragraph 5. Flutter contains rotational movements but can also be a coupled movement of both translation and rotation. The oscillating force is generated by the movement of the structure.1 Dynamic response A structure is considered stiff if it responds directly to wind loads.1 gives an introduction. which are explained in detail in §5.

The wind load is increased with one combined constant. Vertical structures. This can be done using computer finite element analyses of the structures design. The structural factor ( )√ ( ) kp = peak factor.1 (see figure 37) B2 = background factor. Collapse can very well occur due to (wind load) fatigue and not overload. but so frequent that these force become important in fatigue. When considering the dynamic response of a structure the natural frequencies and natural mode shapes need to be known. The national annex NEN-EN 1991-1-4+A1+C2/NB states that NEN-EN 1991-1-2:2005 Annex C must be used for calculating the structural factor. The applied structural factor may also not be smaller than cscd ≥ 0. and this mode shape needs to have a constant sign. allows for turbulence in resonance with the structure The structural factor may only be calculated with the formula above if the structure corresponds to one of the general shapes shown in figure 37. background factor and resonant response. The structural factor cscd accounts for the combined effect of the nonsimultaneous action of peak wind pressures over faces of the structure (size effect = cs) and the vibration of the structure in its fundamental mode due to the action of turbulence (dynamic response = cd). 5. 66 . ratio of the maximum value of the fluctuating part of the response to its standard deviation Iv = turbulence intensity zs = reference height can be found in NEN-EN 1991-1-4:2005 figure 6. allows for the lack of correlation of pressure over the structure R2 = resonant response. horizontal structures and point like structures.2 Structural factor.85. NEN-EN 1991-1-4 The NEN-EN 1991-1-4 standard takes dynamic effects into account.A dynamic wind effect can generate extreme forces on a structure but can also generated moderate forces. Also only the along-wind vibration in the fundamental mode must be significant.

1] 67 .Figure 37 General shapes of structures covered by the design procedure [NEN-EN 1991-1-4 Figure 6.

When the direction of motion of the structure ( ̇ ) is equal to the wind direction ( ̅) than the relative velocity with respect to the structure ( ̅ ̇ ) is reduced and therefor the wind pressure is reduced. Figure 38 shows an example of aerodynamic damping. Typically. The critical wind velocity is reached when the frequency of vortex shedding equals to the natural frequency of the structure. Vortex shedding. This phenomenon is known as negative aerodynamic damping. Shown in figure 39.1 Buffeting With Buffeting the fluctuating nature of the wind velocity generates an equally fluctuating wind pressure. reducing the chance of negative aerodynamic damping. When the motion of the structure is opposing the wind direction the relative velocity ( ̅ ̇ ) is increased and therefor also the wind pressure.3 Wind effects and vibrations This paragraph deals with: Buffeting. Divergence and flutter.3. 68 . 5.2 Vortex shedding Vortex shedding is an unsteady oscillating flow of vortices which can appear downstream a structure placed in a laminar flow. In the Eurocode the size effect (cs) is a factor which looks at the size of the structure and the resulting possibility of being swept by a single gust. This fluctuating wind pressure may cause the structure to deflect in the along wind direction. Vortex shedding may result in structural vibrations if the frequency of vortex-shedding is equal to the natural frequency of the structure.5. the critical wind velocity for vortex shedding is a frequent wind velocity. Galloping. The repeating pattern in which the vortex shedding occurs is called a Karman vortex street. When a structure or members of it consists of large frontal areas it will not be swept by a single gust but always by multiple gusts. The generated force can result in the structure vibrating and in fatigue of the structure. Alternating low pressure zones downstream of the structure generates a force on the structure perpendicular to the wind flow. Figure 38 Wind velocity (U) on a deflecting structure (x) How to avoid Buffeting? When a structure is stiff the amount of deflection will be minimal and the possible negative aerodynamic damping will be small. This phenomenon is known as positive aerodynamic damping. 5. When this motion reaches the natural frequency of the structure an energy build-up can lead to severe deflection.3.

exceeds a factor 6. and the fluctuating forces are enhanced as energy is build up. Vortex shedding can create enormous instability.Figure 39 Simulated vortex street around a no-slip cylindrical obstruction When the vortex shedding frequency changes towards the natural frequency of a structure a phenomenon known as lock-in can occur. Annex E. according to NEN-EN 1991-1-4. vortex shedding should be investigated.1 vm = mean 10min. It caused the collapse of three cooling towers at the Ferrybridge power station in Great Brittan in 1965. both taken in the plane perpendicular to the wind. Figure 40 Collapsed cooling tower of the Ferybridge power station. Shown in figure 40. 1965 When the ratio of the largest and smallest crosswind dimension of a structure. Vortex shedding need to be investigated.I = critical wind velocity. 69 . wind velocity Vcrit. The strength of the vortices shed. for vibration mode i.

Strouhal number for rectangular cross-sections with sharp corners The critical wind velocity.18. b = the reference with of the cross-section at which vortex shedding occurs ni. Table E. 70 .5Hz for a square boxed section of 1x1m.06 to 0. Higher Scruton number result in smaller displacements of the vibrations. For the crane hotel vcrit. It depends on the cross-section shape and on the Reynolds number. The Strouhal number is always in the range of 0.The critical wind velocity is defined a function of the natural frequency of the structure and the Strouhal number.I > 37m/s resulting in a minimal natural frequency of 4. Figure 41 NEN-EN 1991-1-4. for bending vibration mode i.1.y = the natural frequency of the considered flexural mode i of cross-wind vibration St = Strouhal number The critical wind velocity for vortex shedding depends strongly on the size of the structure or its member and the stiffness.1 present the Strouhal numbers for different cross-sections. depends on the ratio between the structural mass per unit length times the structural damping and the fluid mass times the square of the reference with. For circular cross sections a Sc > 10 usually indicates a low amplitude of vibration.1 and figure E. The Strouhal number is a dimensionless number describing oscillating flow mechanisms. The extent in which vibrations caused by the wind flow play a part. Figure E. This is expressed with the Scruton number (Sc). NEN-EN 1991-1-4. Figure 41 shows the Strouhal number for a boxed cross-section.

Figure 42 Amplitude built-up after the cylinder has been released in low turbulence flow (Hansen 2007) In certain meteorological situations with cold and smooth air flow over a relatively long period of time. Annex E.3 is based on the spectral model and takes rare as well as frequent events into account by including the influence of turbulence in the vibration amplitudes predicted. Results obtained from wind tunnel tests. 71 . The second approach in NEN-EN 1991-1-4.5.1.2 is based on the vortex-resonance model and provides response estimates. which are larger than frequent and lower than rare events.5. with different crosssections. Large-scale turbulence in the atmosphere may be interpreted as a slowly varying mean wind velocity. This drawback of the first approach is not presented in the second approach: the spectral model NEN-EN 1991-1-4. So large scale turbulence and the resulting high wind velocity variation will have a reducing effect on the vortex-induced vibrations. Hansen report shows that when the mean wind velocity is 4-5% higher or lower than the critical wind velocity the generated amplitude of the vibration is reduced by more than 50%. say of 1 hour. see figure 42. Annex E. these models are still rather crude.1. are compared with the mathematical models presented in NEN-EN 1991-1-4.1. The first approach in NEN-EN 1991-1-4. Annex E. Hansen states that although a great deal of effort has been made in improving analytical models for predicting vibrations due to vortex shedding.2. Annex E.1. Models should focus on rare and extreme events. occurring once in 10-50years and generating large amplitudes but also on frequent events. 2007) the flow and structural characteristics governing vortex-induced vibrations of structures are described. occurring very often during the expected lifetime of a structure and generating small amplitudes. Annex E. Frequent events give a major contribution to the fatigue damage of a structure.1.3.5. some slender steel structures may experience larger vibrations than predicted by the vortex-resonance model used in the first approach in NEN-EN 1991-1-4.In the paper of (Hansen.5.

splitters. Mostly sections with high Strouhal numbers like: square boxed sections and smooth circular sections. But when using such cross sections aerodynamic devices can be added to reduce the chance of vortex shedding.How to avoid vortex shedding? Vortex-induced vibrations and movements can be reduced by sufficient structural damping and by avoiding cross sections which a prone to vortex shedding. Helical stakes are fitted on circular cross sections and produce turbulence with different length scales and hence a less constructive force on the structure. Figure 43 Splitter and spoiler to reduce vortex shedding Figure 44 Helical stakes. Figure 43 shows splitters and spoilers. The drawback of helical stakes and protuberances is that they increase the drag coefficients and drag force and possibly increase buffeting. Like guide vanes. Reducing the vortex shedding of circular cross sections 72 . Reducing the vortex shedding of circular cross sections Figure 45 Protuberances. adding protuberances. Figure 44 shows helical stakes. Protuberances generate the same effect as helical stakes. helical stakes or damping devices. Figure 45 shows protuberance on multiple structures.

at low frequencies. 73 . 5. The tendency and intensity of structure galloping increases when the wind velocity increases. It is found that for cylinders with a diameter d=80mm helical strakes can reduce vortex induced vibrations with 98% and no lock-in is experienced.y = the natural frequency of the considered flexural mode i of cross-wind vibration b = the reference with of the cross-section at which vortex shedding occurs One should ensure that the onset wind velocity of galloping is at least 25% higher than the mean wind velocity. The structure extracts kinetic energy form the wind and transferring it into motion of the structure itself. The paper of Hansen also states that high turbulence can create high fluctuating wind velocities and therefor reduce the change of a constant wind at the critical velocity. So turbulence can reduce the chance on vortex shedding. It’s negative if the structure moves opposite of the wind flow. Galloping always occurs at the structures natural frequency. So downstream members in a lattice structure are less sensitive to vortex shedding. increasing the wind load. Aerodynamic damping is a form of wind resistance generated by the movement of the structure itself. Galloping needs to be initiated by a velocity of the structure perpendicular to the velocity of the wind. In that case the downstream member will increase the already present vortexes. Zhou. Galloping arises when the aerodynamic damping is negative and so becomes a forcing function. The wind velocity at which galloping starts is the onset velocity of galloping (vCG). Lightweight and flexible structures are most likely to undergo galloping.2.3 Galloping Galloping is a self-excited vibration and aero-elastic phenomena.2 Sc = Scruton number aG = galloping instability factor ni.3. Unless the distance between the members is identical to the length of the vortexes. Cross sections which are prone to Galloping are: square sections. It’s a single degree of freedom motion and occurs when there are large amplitude oscillations normal to the mean wind flow. Ice may also cause stable cross sections to become unstable.The paper of (T. 2011) describes a research on cylinders with and without helical strakes. NEN-EN 1991-1-4. Annex E. D-shaped sections and iced-up lines or guy cable.

The wind velocity at which interference galloping starts is given in NEN-EN 1991-1-4. interference galloping may occur. Table E.3 74 . Table 23 Factor of galloping instability a0 [NEN-EN 1991-1-4. The cross section of a member determines the galloping instability factor. A front member in the structure may generate wakes which can cause galloping to the following members.7-1. Annex E.When the ratio between the onset wind velocity of galloping and the critical wind velocity for vortex shedding is within 0. The wind velocity at which classical galloping is equal to the formula for the wind velocity at which galloping starts. Table 22 shows such a table. When multiple cylinders are arranged close together.7] When multiple cylinders are coupled classical galloping may occur.5 expert advice is recommended. without being connected.

75 . but galloping can be reduced. natural frequency and with of the structure have a positive contributions. spacing and Scruton number determines the difference between the offset velocity for coupled and interference galloping. This specific cross section starts galloping wind velocity 70% lower than NEN-EN 1991-1-4 predicts. stiffness. His research focused on a rectangular cross section with a height/depth ratio of 1:2. Scruton numbers and the instability factors for coupled and interference galloping. For lines and wires galloping cannot be completely prevented because of the small internal damping of cables and lines. In that case classical galloping may occur. The thesis of (Larsen. 2011) deals with vortex shedding and galloping. So a high internal damping. Figure 46 shows an example of two cylinders including the dimensions. Figure 47 shows multiple mechanical devices. So if a structure is critical for galloping a wind tunnel test is advised. Interference galloping can be avoided by coupling the multiple cylinders.0 a = the spacing between the cylinders Interference galloping can be avoided by coupling the free-standing cylinders.√ aIG = the combined galloping instability factor aIG = 3. But the example above shows that not all structures will strongly benefit form coupling. So a high Scruton number and a high natural frequency increase the offset velocity. Figure 46 Example of coupled and interference galloping Above example shows that for structures with low Scruton numbers (light and not much internal damping) coupling increases the offset velocity with just 20% but for structures with high Scruton number (heavy and high internal damping) coupling increases the offset velocity with 170%. mass. How to avoid galloping? Just like with vortex shedding the Scruton number and the natural frequency strongly contribute to the offset wind velocity for galloping. This can be done by coupling multiple lines together by mechanical devices. For multiple cylinders the dimensions.

which again changes the defection. Depending on the stiffness and damping of the structure this can be a stable or unstable deflection/motion. Divergence is a steady aero-elasticity which can grow exponentially. Where the change in aerodynamics and loads increases the forces resulting in a positive feedback process.4 Divergence and flutter Divergence and flutter are instabilities that occur for flexible plate-like structures above a certain critical wind velocity which involve rotations of the structure. resulting in vibration. Divergence and flutter should be avoided. When the damping of the structure is insufficient an energy build-up in the system results in increasing amplitudes of the vibration and a self-exciting oscillation. This deflection changes the wind load on the structure. Plate-like structures are boxed section of which the ratio between the characteristic diameter divided by the wind depth is smaller than twenty-five per cent. Flutter lead to the destruction of the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge.Figure 47 Mechanical coupling of wires.4 that the critical divergence velocity should be at least twice the mean wind velocity. ⁄ Divergence and flutter are caused by the deflection of the structure. Flutter is a dynamic aero-elasticity. But in some cases the increased loads can deflect the structure to its limits and failure. to reduce galloping 5. bringing the structure back to its equilibrium. containing two dimensional body rotations causing an oscillating motion. The change in aerodynamics and loads increases the forces. When vibrating at a structures natural mode it can result to failure.3. It’s an oscillation of two or more degrees of freedom. The Eurocode 1 also states in Annex E. 76 .

1940 under a wind velocity of just 68km/h. Figure 48 The oscillating motion of flutter and the rotational motion of divergence The Tacoma Narrow Bridge collapsed on November 7. The numbers provide the order in which the photos have been taken. the second torsional mode of the bridge. 1940 77 . Flutter is an oscillating motion which also leads to failure when the structure lacks stiffness and damping. the frequency of the destructive mode was 0. Figure 49 Tacoma Bridge November 7th.2Hz and this was not a natural mode of the bridge. see figure 49. A torsional vibration mode. The critical flutter wind velocity in this case was definitely not higher than the maximum mean wind velocity.Figure 48 shows the difference between divergence and flutter. Divergence is a rotational phenomenon in which a structure is rotated until the lack of stiffness and damping leads to failure. Vortex shedding did not cause the collapse of the bridge. twisted the roadway to such excessive deflections and stresses it collapsed.

So that the structure cannot be rotated to such a point that the wind load keeps increasing until failure. a Lockheed L-188 Electra. Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 710. crashed on March 17. The left wing experienced flutter. How to avoid flutter? Flutter and divergence are rotational deflections so the number one step is to avoid flutter is to provide the structure with enough rotational stiffness. 1960 by the same cause as Braniff Flight 542. This caused even lager wing vibrations resulting in the left wing disintegrating from the airplane. When the magnitude of the flutter grew the frequencies decreased to 3Hz creating harmonic coupling. disintegrated in mid-air resulting in a fatal crash on September 29.Braniff Flight 542. 1959. also a Lockheed L-188 Electra. 78 .

The forces. after super typhoon Maemi in 2003 79 .6. NENEN 1991-1-4 and ASCE 7 advices to use wind tunnel testing when their analytical method is insufficient. on the model structure must be measured using sensors and a setup. When using a wind tunnel one must always use a scale model of the structure. Wind tunnel research Aerodynamic coefficients or wind loads may also be determined with wind tunnel experiments. or when the structure has an unusual shape. The wind flow inside the wind tunnel must always represent a real life wind flow. This could lead to adding extra stowing devices. Figure 50 The demolished cranes in South Korea. like rail clamps ore tying down the crane. or parts of the structure. This can be the case when dynamic effects are expected to occur and not adequately covered in the standard. so must also contain a boundary layer. In September 2003 super typhoon Maemi destroyed multiple container cranes in South Korea. Figure 50 shows the demolished cranes. vibrations. The setup itself determines which parameters and which behaviour can be measured. pressures etc. Wind tunnel research can also as a tool for determine the stability of a crane.

Figure 51 shows an example. Figure 51 Example of a scaled crane model inside a wind tunnel The flow around a cross section is determined by the Reynolds number. Density. v = wind velocity D = characteristic diameter ν = kinematic viscosity With a scale model the characteristic diameter of all members is reduced. So it’s not needed to scale up the wind velocity with the same factor as the dimensions are reduced. the ratio between the density of the structure and the air density. ratio between the frequency of vortex shedding and the wind velocity. The flow around a scaled and full scale cross section is identical when both have the same Reynolds number. Strouhal number. Jensen number. the ratio between inside the wind tunnel and in the real world. These parameters are known as non-dimensional response/pressure coefficients. values like the stiffness and damping should correspond. Froude number. Examples are Turbulence intensity. They are all associated with the flow and the structure. but one should only check that the Reynolds number generated by the wind tunnel flow is the same range as the full scale model. But the aerodynamic coefficient is constant for certain Reynolds number ranges. Besides the Reynolds number there are many other parameters which should correspond between the full scale and scale model. ratio between the length scale factors of the structure and the atmospheric boundary-layer simulation. This is impossible and not necessary. To make sure the scale model and the results are realistic and applicable for the full scale structure some rules must be checked. ratio between the wind velocity and the wave propagation velocity.6.1 Scale model Because cranes are often very large structures one must use a scale model for wind tunnel testing. a ratio between the elastic forces and the inertial forces. So when working with a scale 1:50 model the wind velocity should be increased 50 times compared to the full scale mean wind velocity. Cauchy number. 80 . especially when testing dynamic behaviour. The aerodynamic coefficient of many cross sections is a function of the Reynolds number and so is the aerodynamic coefficient.

Making drag coefficients determined in smooth flow higher and more conservative. Not only the velocity but also the turbulence intensity and boundary layer must be generated properly. to prevent significant increases or decreases of the wind velocity around the model and wind pressures on the model. Scarabino. not always all details are scaled. cables. shown in figure 52 and contains turbulence. Holmes (2001) 81 . The report also points out that the aerodynamic force coefficients have nearly constant values. respectively. When determine the wind forces and dynamic response the turbulence level and boundary layer of the wind flow are important. Figure 52 Boundary layer creation in a wind tunnel. The developed height should exceed the height of the model and envelop the model completely. my not be included in the scale model. Is shows that the wind load is reduced in ABL compared to smooth flow. 2008) the difference in wind load between smooth flow and two types of atmospheric boundary layers is shown. 6. railings etc. like stairs. Wind tunnels can produce smooth flow. One real life effect inside the boundary layer cannot be achieved in wind tunnel testing: the Ekman Spiral. but the overturn moment is increased. The length of the upstream part determines the developed height of the boundary layer.When making a scale model crane. In the real world turbulence can be generated by surrounding structures ore landscape.2 Wind flow A correctly constructed and dimensioned model and a well-chosen wind velocity is still not enough to ensure a proper result. Minute structures. compared with detailed crane models which include minute structures. Always ensure that the blockage ratio is below 5%. Turbulent flows can reduce the drag coefficients. 2008) shows that drag forces and pitching moments coefficients of a scale model without minute structures can be decreased with 8-20% and 12-33%. the results form wind tunnel experiments are therefore not always representative of the real wind loads on structures. when the Reynolds number is beyond Re = 5x105. The report of (Sang-Joon Lee. The report of (A. 2005) shows the result on drag coefficients in a smooth flow and in a turbulent flow. A change in both can result in a change in de measured forces and response. A boundary layer can be created by adding surface roughness to the floor of the upstream part of the wind tunnel. In the report of (Jong-Hoon Kang.

82 . Aero-elastic model which is dynamically coupled to the support. Figure 53 Support system for wind tunnel testing with scale models. center: force balance. The wind pressure distribution over the model can be determined. A base balance support system can reduce the amount of wind tunnel testing time by a large factor. A base balance is a stiff support system. Figure 53 shows illustrations of them. The overall forces and moments can be determined 3.6. 1. A base-pivoted support system allows for the model structure to vibrate. Rigid model on which multiple surface pressure tapes are placed. When working with an aero-elastic model the behaviour of the model should agree with the behaviour of the real structure. left: pressure taps. The support system of the model structure determines the possibility to measure the aero elastic forces and the resonant response of the model structure. where the aero elastic properties of the real structure are not modelled. This allows determining the aerodynamic forces and the dynamic response. right: dynamically coupled. Force balance model which is connected to a balance.3 Support system When working with a scale model of a structure there are three options for the support system of the model. 2.

Numeric example Chapter 7 shows a numeric example of the in the Netherlands applicable standards for a simplified crane. 7. Paragraph 7.2 deals with the standards and paragraph 7.1 Numeric example crane Figure 54 shows the container which has been simplified and used in this example. Paragraph 7.00m l2 = 25.7.3 compares the results. 83 .1 described the crane.00m depth = 2.00m d2 = 3. numeric example Figure 55 Simplified container crane. d1 = 2.5 presents the result of a paper in which results from wind tunnel measurements are compared to results from NEN 13001 and NEN 2018. numeric example The U-shape in figure 55 consists of three members. Two vertical members (I and II) of: 2mx2mx25m and one horizontal member (III) of: 2mx3mx30m. Figure 54 Container crane. paragraph 7.00m l1 = 30. shown in figure 55 is the frontal view.00m In this chapter just one U-shape is considered and a constant wind pressure of q = 500N/m2.4 and 7.

c0. 7.00m – 2.00m = 28.76 Figure 28 shows a boxed cross section member with sharp edges.78 ψIII = 0. (see figure 20) = 1.00m – 1.00m = 1. The shielding factor (η) depends on the solidarity and the ratio a/d.1 NEN-EN 13001-2:2011 The relative aerodynamic length of both members is found in NEN-EN 13001-2 Table A. who are 20.5) 2 AI and II = 47.1 # 4 using the formula: lo = 25.85 with Table A.0 meters behind each other.50m = 23.50m and d = 2.13 (linear interpolation between b/d=1 and b/d=0.1.1 # 7 using the formula: lo = 30.7. d = characteristic dimension. (see figure 24) η = 0.0m2 The wind load on the simplified crane ( ) The simplified crane from figure 55 consists in reality of two U-shapes.2 Results numeric example This paragraph gives the results using the crane described in paragraph 7.999 for ⁄ and 84 .1. I and II = 2.0 c0.00m and d = 3. Annex A. III = 2.2.00m The solidity ratio for all members The aerodynamic slenderness of both members Figure 56 shows the determination of the reduction factors for the members ψI and II = 0. where a = distance between the members.0m AIII = 84.4 of NEN-EN 13001-2 deals with multiple members behind each other.78 with Table A.

NEN-EN 13001-2 Figure A.The wind load on two U-shapes ( ) Figure 56 Reduction factors of both member of the example crane.1 85 .

Member I and II h/d = 1 l/b = 11.2 NEN 2018:1983 The aerodynamic coefficients of both member types are determined using NEN2018 table 22.2. at a distance of 20.5 l/b = 9.33 Cf = 1. table 22. single U-shape crane The shielding factor for the second U-shape frame.59 A = 47.75 Cf = 1. example crane 86 .0 meters η = 1. shown in table 23.63 A = 84.0m2 Wind load on the simplified. The wind load on two U-shapes Table 23 NEN 2018. force coefficients.0m2 III h/d = 1.7.

59 A = 47. table 2.0m2 Wind load on the simplified.3 ISO 4302:1981 For the force coefficients of the types of members linear interpolation is necessary. force coefficients.2.75 Cf = 1. example crane 87 . The wind load on two U-shapes Table 24 ISO 4302:1981.33 Cf = 1. single U-shape crane The shielding factor for the second U-shape frame.5 l/b = 9. Shown in table 24.63 A = 84.0m2 III b/d = 1. Member I and II b/d = 1 l/b = 11.7. at a distance of 20.0 meters η = 1.

2. Figure 57 and 58 show the graphs used to determine the coefficients.0m2 III b/d = 1.23. Figure 7.7.5 cf.0 = 2. end-effect factor. ∑ [ [ [( ( ) ) ] ] [( ) ]] Figure 57 NEN-EN 1991-1-4.7 ψλ =0.36.0 = 1. example crane Figure 58 NEN-EN 1991-1-4.81 A = 84.0m2 The structural factor cscd of this simplified crane is not calculated. example crane 88 .87 ψr =1 λ = 26.6 ψλ =0.1 ψr =1 λ = 21. Member I and II b/d = 1 cf. Figure 7. A value of 1 is used. force coefficient.78 A = 47.4 NEN-EN 1991-1-4:2005 The direct method is used for this example.

All standards provide aerodynamic coefficients for this cross section. which is necessary for crane design. All dough the newer standards use a more intense method the results are for all standards identical. 89 . Using no reduction caused by the shielding effect leads to a strongly overestimated wind load. which are often a function of the shape ratio and Reynolds numbers. NEN-EN 1991-1-4 does not contain a shielding factor.7. This is mainly caused by the simple cross section. The newer standards contain an extensive library of cross sections with adequate aerodynamic coefficients.3 Comparison of the results The example crane is this example consists of a simple and common cross section.

Wind loading on crane structures.F. Calculations Wind loading on Crane Structures. J. This has been done because the real dimension will lead to higher Reynolds numbers. Table 25 shows the calculation of the typical jib section for NEN 13001-2. Figure 59 Wind tunnel tests on a model crane structure. Eden 1985 Figure 60 shows all dimensions of the jib sections which have been tested in the wind tunnel. NEN 2018 In the papers (Bos. 2003) the results of a wind tunnel test on a scales lattice structure jib (see figure 59) have been compared with calculations on the same jib using NEN 2018 and NEN 13001. 90 .4 Wind tunnel vs.F.7. Both at a scale of 1:12. Figure 60 Dimension of the jib section tested in the wind tunnel (J. Two types of sections have been tested: the typical jib section and the high solidity jib section. For the calculations the dimensions of the scale model have been used. 2002) and (Bos. NEN 13001 vs. Eden 1985) From both jib sections the aerodynamic coefficients and projected area have been calculated with NEN 2018 and NEN 13001-2. For NEN 13001-2 this can lead to higher aerodynamic coefficients for curtain cross sections.

91 .Table 25 Calculation of AC NEN 13001-2. The peak wind load from the wind tunnel experiment has also been included. wind velocity and the resulting wind load. Table 26 Overview of the resulting wind load on the jib sections The differences between the standard are minimal in this example. But infect there is a difference between the newer NEN 13001 and the older NEN 2018. typical jib section Table 26 shows all AC values.

In-service both standards use similar wind pressure but out-of-service NEN 13001 uses much higher wind pressures. Table 27 and 28 show the wind pressure. 92 .and out-of-service. So generally results of both standards (§7. NEN 2018 In the papers (Bos. The aerodynamic coefficients in NEN 13001 come from an extended and more detailed library than found in NEN 2018 this causes a difference for higher Reynolds numbers.4 + 7. which results in better aerodynamic coefficients.5) show good similarity with the wind tunnel results and with each other for low Reynolds numbers. NEN-EN 13001 has an extended shape library of aerodynamic coefficient compared with NEN 2018. Differences between the standards occur at high Reynolds-numbers. 7 and 15. In the out-of-service condition the difference in wind pressure between the standards is 20-80%. Table 27 Overview of total calculated wind force according to both standards for a typical jib section (φ = 33%) Table 28 Overview of total calculated wind force according to both standards for a high solidity section (φ = 51%) In table 27 and 28 it shows that for low wind pressures and Reynolds numbers the differences are small. 2003) not only wind tunnel tests have been compared. Another difference between both standards is found in the wind pressure. But also the wind load on a mobile crane and a harbor crane both with a solidity of φ = 33% or φ = 51%. Calculations Wind loading on Crane Structures. The wind pressure from NEN 13001 is >16% higher in all cases. In this comparison the differences between both standards appear. Because the high Reynolds numbers reduce the effective aerodynamic coefficients of the harbor crane the wind load differs between -8% to +16%.5 NEN 13001 vs. But for the out-of-service wind condition the differences are much larger. 2002) and (Bos.7. depending on the wind area chosen and the height. effective aerodynamic coefficient of the total crane and the wind load. Wind loading on crane structures. This enormous difference is due to the increase in knowledge in the almost 30 years between both standards. Both cranes in the wind condition: in. as shown in figure 6.

In the older standards these constants where very rough estimates and all cross section and members where dealt with in a single table of aerodynamic coefficients. to determine aerodynamic drag coefficients. for some cross sections this basic coefficient is even a function of the Reynolds number or wind angle. Their position within the structure determines the possibility of reducing this basic aerodynamic coefficient. 93 . The wind load is one of the loads a structure must withstand. ( ) ( ) All standard allow wind tunnel testing or CFD as well. often 50 years. solidity and roundness of the corners. All standards used in this report show a similar method used to determine the wind load. For a certain cross section a basic aerodynamic coefficient is given. The bases of the wind pressure is the fundamental wind velocity. Finally the mean wind velocity is multiplied with the air density resulting in the wind pressure. In the newer standards the resulting basic wind velocity is increased with a factor which adds the dynamics of a turbulent wind flow. The method of determine the aerodynamic coefficients and projected area differs in the amount of used parameters and detail. The standards describe all occurring loads and load combinations resulting in a safe and durable construction. The out-of-service wind load increases with height.4. This fundamental wind velocity depends on the topographic location of the structure and the presence of nearby structures and landscape. shown in paragraph 1. In the newer standards this has changed enormously. which is measured at 10m height above flat and open ground and averaged over a certain time. ( ) ( ( ) ) ( ( ) ) How are the shape coefficients of the structures member determined? The shape coefficients of the structure determine the aerodynamic drag they create. Distinction is made in some standards between an in-service wind load and an out-of-service wind load. In all standards the wind load is calculated using the basic physic formula. The difference is made in the modelling of the wind pressure out of the basic wind velocity and the turbulence intensity. How is the wind pressure determined and modelled? The wind pressure in all standards is modelled as a static wind pressure which represents the pressure of a dynamic and constantly changing wind flow. Conclusion When designing a crane the use of standards is obligatory. 3 seconds or 10minutes and comes with a certain return period.8. Depending on the slenderness. as a function of the structures height.

How is the wind load on a crane determined?
The final wind load on a crane is the multiplication of the wind pressure with the aerodynamic
coefficient and the projected area. The projected area is the frontal area which is ‘hit’ by the wind
flow. When multiple members of a structure are downstream of each other, they can provide shielding
from the wind. This shielding effect reduces the wind pressure. They amount of shielding depends on
the ratio of the spacing between the members and the height of the members.
(

)

(

)

For design calculations on a crane the wind load is not the only load. It’s combined with the own
weight, hoisting load, accelerations etc. Each load has its contributions to the total load situation.
When looking at ultimate limit states the contribution of the wind load is reduced by a safety factor
below one. But when looking at rigid body stability the influence of the wind load is increased with a
safety factor above one.
(

)

Which dynamical effects are possible to occur with large structures?
The possible dynamical effects are not intensively dealt with in all standards. The occurrence of
dynamical effects mainly depends on the structures dimensions, stiffness and natural frequencies. The
cross section’s dimensions can strongly determine the sensitivity of a structure to start behaving
dynamically. Cranes commonly have a natural frequency below 1Hz and contain slender steel
members. Therefore cranes can be sensitive to dynamical behaviour, especially buffeting and vortex
shedding. Avoiding critical cross sections and adding spoilers, helical stakes, coupling etc. can strongly
increase the offset wind velocity for dynamical behaviour. Wind tunnel research with an aero-elastic
model is a useful and advised tool to investigate dynamical behaviour.
Wind loading standards are often based on extensive research, but they remain simplified models of
wind loading. So great accuracy cannot be expected. Wind tunnel and CFD research can be a valuable
tool for determine the wind load and dynamic behaviour of a crane model. When a crane consists of a
complex structure and/or is surrounded by many structures causing aerodynamic interference
between the members standards can result in an extremely conservative wind load, so wind tunnel
testing can be an option. Make sure that when using a wind tunnel test the model, the wind flow and
the setup are constructed correctly and all dimensionless scaling parameters are checked.
All standards look alike, but still differ. The growth of world trade will force the number of standards
to reduce. More consistency in standards will develop more detailed and worldwide applicable
standards. Because each part of the world has its own climate and resulting wind velocity,
temperature, air density etc. a worldwide standard can contain much more data and detail in
94

determine the wind pressure. The knowledge on wind dynamics and the resulting wind loads is a
constantly developing field, in which wind tunnel and CFD testing provides more and more insight. A
worldwide standard can increase and accelerate the knowledge on wind loads on structures. For
manufactures a worldwide standard would mean that a crane design can be sold all over the world,
for a certain maximum wind level. This can reduce the cost of recalculation the crane design for each
county’s own national standard.

95

References
(sd). Opgehaald van Université de Liege: http://www.tdee.ulg.ac.be/doc-30.html
A. Scarabino, J. M. (2005). Drag coefficients and Strohal numbers of a port crane boom girder section.

Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 93, 451-460.
ASCE, T. C.-I. (2011). Wind Loads for Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities. Reston, Virginia:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Bos, I. W. (2002). Wind loading on crane structures. Delft: Faculty Mechanical Engineering and Marine
Technology, section Transport Technology and Logistics, TU Delft.
Bos, I. W. (2003). Calculations Wind loading on Crane Structures. Delft: Faculty Mechanical
Engineering and Marine Technology, Section Transport Technology and Logistics, TU Delft.
Bouw, N. (2011). Bouw Jaarboek 2011. Delft: Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut.
CEN. (2005, April). Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-4: General actions - WInd actions [NENEN 1991-1-4:2005].
Cook, N. (2007). Designers' Guide to EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures, general actions

part 1-4. Wind actions. London: Thomas Telford Publishing.
Engineers, A. S. (2010). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures [ASCE/SEI 7-10].
Reston, Virginia, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Han, D.-S. H.-J. (2011). The difference in the uplift force at each support point of a container crane
between FSI analysis and a wind tunnel test. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

25 (2), 301-308.
Hansen, S. O. (2007). Vortex-induced vibrations of structures. Bangalore, India: Structural Engineers
World Congress.
Holmes, J. D. (2001). Wind Loading of Structures. London: Spon Press.
J.F. Eden, A. B. (June 1985). A new approach to the calculations of wind forces on a vertical and
horzontal latticed structures. In The structural Engineer Volume 63A.
J.Verschoof, I. (1999). Cranes. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Jenkinson, A. (1955). The frequency distribution of the annual maximum (or minimum) values of
metrological elements. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Metrological Society 81, 158-171.
Jong-Hoon Kang, S.-J. L. (2008). Experimental study of wind load on a container crane located in a
uniform flow and atmospheric boundary layers. Engineering Structures (30), 1913-1921.
Larsen, M. (2011). Vortex Shedding and Galloping on a Rectangular Cross Section. Lyngby, Denmark:
Technical University of Denmark, Department of Civil Engineering.
Lawson, T. (2001). Building Aerodynamics. London: Imperial College Press.
Louisiana

State

University,

H.

C.

(sd).

Hurricane

Engineering.

Opgehaald

van

http://www.hurricaneengineering.lsu.edu/
Normalisatie-instituut. (1976, March). Cranes. Stability (safety against turning over) [NEN 2022].
Normalisatie-instituut. (2007, August). Technical principles for building structures - TGB 1990 Loadings and deformations [NEN 6702].
Normalisatie-instituut.

(2011,

December).

Eurocode:

Basis

of

structural

design

[NEN-EN

1990+A1+A1/C2].
96

193-208.-W. (2011. J. Peng Huang. Sang-Joon Lee. Standardization.Wind actions [NEN-EN 1991-14+A1+C2/NB]. Journal of fluid and Structures 27. T. Cranes. Full and model scale study of wind effects on a medium-rise building in a built up area. D. 893-896). Normalisatie-instituut. (2007).-S. (2011. Normalisatie-instituut. Wind Tunnel Test and Numerical Simulation of Mean Wind Loads on a Container Crane. W. The Structural Stability Analysis of a Container Crane according to the Boom Shape using Wind Tunnel Test. I. Crane safety . Yokohama. K. 365-372. N. Wind load on a container crane located in atmospheric boundarylayers. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 59.-H.-H. December). Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 96.Wind load assessment [ISO 4302].Normalisatie-instituut. Normalisatie-instituut. J. October). 347. 2208-2226. National Annex tot NEN-EN 1991-1-4+A1+C2: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures . (2006). Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Y. The Fourth International Symposium on Computiona lWind Engineering (CWE2006). (1981. Noselli. (2002). December). Zhou.Part 2: Load actions [NEN-EN 13001-2 (en)]. Experimental evidence of flutter and divergence instabilities induced. Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers. K. (2011). (2008). N. (2011.-j. R. (pp. M. 97 . (1983. A. B. Loads and combinations of loads [NEN 2018]. S. On the study of vortex-induced vibration of a cylinder. Guide to the use of the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-98. April). O. 903-917. National Annex to NEN-EN 1990+A1+A1/C2: Eurocode: Basis of structural design [NEN-EN 1990+A1+A1/C2/NB].Part 1-4: General actions . N. T. Key Engineering Materials Vol. Cranes . Reston. Snæbjörnsson. C.-J.General design . (2002). May). Perry. Seong-Wook Lee. Trondheim. (2011).