Structural

safety
ELSEVIER Structural Safety 17 (1996) 205-224

Crane load modelling 1

Hartmut Pasternak a, Bogdan Rozmarynowski ‘I* , Yi-Kwei Wen ’
a Technical University of Braunschweig, D-3300 Braunschweig, Germany
’ Technical Uniuersity of Gdahsk, Pl-80952 Gdarisk, Poland
’ Unicersity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 612801, USA

Abstract

Based on the theory of stochastic processes, a model for the vertical load on columns of buildings due to one or
two overhead travelling cranes was developed. In case of two cranes, it is assumed that they move either on the same
crane track (then load modelling includes “clustering” effects) or in neighbouring bays. Characteristic values, partial
safety factors and combination factors have been estimated on the basis of extensive numerical studies, which may be
used for future code provisions on crane loads.

Keywords: Load models; Load combination; Point-crossing method; Load coincidence method; Clustering effects

1. Introduction

One of the most important considerations in the design of buildings and structures is the
determination of loads and load combinations for safety checking. For this purpose, the
characteristic value load factor and combination factor are often used in the building code.
In the new German DIN 18800/l [3] and EUROCODE 1 [4] they are defined as follows:
. Characteristic values S, of action (loads) are based on the appropriate fractile value, i.e.
99%-fractile according to GRUSIBAU guideline [6] and 98%-fractile of the loads referred to
one year as stated by EUROCODE 1. The latter deals with loads, but it does not include any
specific prescription for crane loads yet.
* A partial safety factor yF is used in such a way that the design value of an action load is
S, = yFSk. This design value corresponds approximately to a safety index = 3.8. For simplic-
ity, both codes assume that yF = 1.5 for variable actions.
* Combination factor Q I 0.9 is used to account for the small chance of simultaneous
occurrence of different variable actions (e.g. wind and live load).

* Corresponding author.
’ Discussion is open until November 1996 (please submit your discussion paper to the Editor, Ross B. Corotis).

0167-4730/96/$15.00 0 1996 El sevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDI 0167-4730(95)00011-9
206 H. Pastemak et al. /Structural Safety 17 (1996) 205-224

0.6.-

Fig. 1. Examples of combination factors of crane loads I) for different calculation action zones as a function of
craneway girder spans.

For overhead travelling cranes, the existing deterministic nominal wheel loads have been
introduced as characteristic values. Moreover, the partial safety factor has been assumed a
value a priori (i.e. without any probabilistic reasoning). According to Kikin et al. [7] this
coefficient is about 1.2 to 1.4. It depends mainly on the service intensity and the unevenness of
the runway. Following the mentioned (and many other) codes, forces caused by two cranes are
to be treated as one action, consequently, no combination factors have been provided. In
contrast to this, the Russian code [ll] contains a combination factor for the case of two cranes.
Depending on the load intensity, 4 is either 0.90 or 0.95. Belenja and Vasiljev [l] present the
combination factor $ for different calculation zones, especially with the emphasis on the effect
of the span of the craneway girder (Fig. 1).
In the present paper, based on the theory of stochastic processes, a model for the vertical
loads acting on buildings due to one or two overhead travelling cranes is developed. In case of
two cranes, it is assumed that they move either on the same crane track (then load modelling
includes “clustering” effects) or in neighbouring bays. Characteristic values, partial safety
factors and combination factors are estimated and can be used for future code provisions on
crane loads.

2. Model for one crane

2.1. Problem formulation

Considering the craneway as a system of simply supported continuous beams, the vertical
reaction R, due to a moving crane can be described by a trapezoid pulse shape function as
shown in Fig. 2. Such a model of the structural system supporting the craneway was motivated
by the necessity of defining the pulse shape in a tolerably simple way. This is due to difficulties
arised if the probabilistic analysis of the combined renewal pulse processes is to be performed
[13]. The dashed line in Fig. 2 shows the actual influence line due to the superposition of two
moving forces, whereas the solid line is the simplification of the actual one to facilitate further
 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural SafetyI7 (1996) 205-224 207

Fig. 2. Influence line (- - -) and approximated pulse shape (-) for vertical reaction R,.

analysis. The vertical reactions of the crane wheels F,, F2 due to dead weight and loading in
different bays (Fig. 3) may be obtained from

(1)

(2)
where Eqs. (1) and (2) are valid for bays L and R respectively; QKB = the weight of the crane
bridge; Q = the lifted load; QK = the weight of the trolley; L = the span of the crane and
y = the variable describing the trolley position.
The extreme value Si of the ith load pulse, can be obtained from the following relationship
(Fig. 2):

(3)
where eK7 is the wheel base and 1 denotes the girder span; F;. is given by Eqs. (1) and (2).

Fig. 3. Vertical reactions of the crane load processes X, and X2 acting on columns.
208 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety I7 (1996) 205-224

frequency 1 1

Fig. 4. Frequency distributions of the lifted loads 181.

In the analysis to follow the ith load process will be denoted by X, (Fig. 3).
Two random variables X,* and X,* are used to describe the uncertainty of forces given by
Eqs. (1) and (2): X,* = Q (lifted load) and X; = y (trolley position). The probability density
function (PDF) of each random variable is assumed to be known. The first variable deals with
the lifted load and is characterized in the form of empirical frequency diagrams (Fig. 4) [81. On
the basis of these diagrams, the suitable PDFs are constructed. These four cases describe
different regimens of the crane work, i.e. the diagram A in Fig. 4 shows that the greater part of
lifted weights is of smaller quantity, the diagram D depicts the crane’s work in the range of
larger weights, wheras diagrams denoted by B and C represent intermediate cases.
Note that in all cases the maximum value of the lifted load has been chosen 20% higher than
the nominal load (overloading and small unevennesses of the runway are included). The second
random variable is described by the PDF of the trolley position which is proposed to be of two
types: uniform and triangular (Fig. 5). The triangular PDF represents bridge cranes working
predominantly on one side of the bay. The triangular PDF of the trolley position may have the
peak value on the left (as in Fig. S(bottom)) or on the right-hand side. This allows one to
consider the effect of a non-uniform trolley position on the reaction.
Assumming statistical independence between X,* and XT one gets
f x,*x;h4 =fx+Jfx;(4 (4)
 H. Pastemak et al. /Structural Safety 17 (1996) 205-224

Fig. 5. PDFs of the trolley position.

in which f indicates probability density function (PDF). With the aid of Eq. (4) and using
standard methods of the probabilistic analysis one obtains the PDFs of the peak value of the
load pulse effect as follows:
* Right bay
1 Qm
f&w = ;(&-x’{ g$ -s-- (5)
B 4

. Left bay

(6)
where A = 2Ll; B = 21- e,,; the remaining symbols are shown in Fig. 2 and 3 and 5.
The integration in Eqs. (5) and (6) can be performed by standard numerical procedures. For
the further analysis of the load combinations one needs to consider two additional functions,
i.e. the mean upcrossing rate function and the arbitrary-point-in-time (APIT) distribution
function [9]. The upcrossing rate provides information of the individual load effect process from
which the distribution of the maximum over a given time can be determined. For a pulse type
process which returns to zero at the end of each occurrence, the mean upcrossing rate can be
written as
‘iltr> = “i’.S,(‘) (7)
where G,( *) is the complementary cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the peak value of
the pulse’and vi denotes the mean rate of arrival of ith load. Note that Eq. (7) also applies to
triangle pulses [9].
210 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety 17 (19961 205-224

When two processes are combined, one needs the APIT distribution function. For renewal
pulse processes this APIT distribution is

where r denotes the level of the load effect; fX,,on(.) is the PDF of the value of ith load process
given that it is “on”; 6(e) is the delta-Dirac function; p and q are the probabilities of the
process being “off’ and “on” respectively. For a renewal rectangular pulse process one gets

fx,,ok) =fs,(r)
where fS,( 0) is described by Eqs. (5) and (6).
For other pulse shapes it is necessary to derive fx,+,, (0) taking into consideration the effect
of the shape of the pulse and fS,( -1. The trapezoid pulse shape that is under consideration can
be seen to be composed of two such parts that the pulse duration is d = 2d; + d;, in which d;
and d; denote the pulse durations of the triangular and rectangular parts of the pulse,
respectively. After such a decomposition of the pulse, one can write Eq. (8) as follows:

where q; = E(d; )/E(d) and q; = 2ECd; )/E(d); E(.l denotes the expected value; the third
term in Eq. (10) describes the ~~,,,,(. > for the triangular pulse [13].

2.2. Numerical results for one crane

The numerical analysis of load effects for the case of one crane includes three functions:
f& .>, i.e.the PDF of the peak value of the pulse process i; f,< .l, i.e. the APIT function
and Y;,(. 1,i.e. the mean upcrossing rate for the pulse process X, and appropriate fractiles. The
main crane’s data (i.e. the nominal values excerpted from the German code [3]) that were used
in the numerical calculations are shown in Table 1. The cases to be considered are presented in
Table 2.
* Table 3 contains the computed 99% and 98%-fractiles ( = characteristic values) for different
cases shown in Table 2.

Table 1
Significant crane’s data [3]
Characteristic L=15m L=30m
values
Q 1kNl 196.2 196.2
QKBMl 49.776 156.96
QK Ml 15.89 19.23
eKT lrnl 2.5 4.56
X,in 14 0.95 0.95
 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety I7 (1996) 205-224 211

Table 2
Calculated cases
Frequency distributions of the lifted load Cases
A, B, C, D PDF of the trolley position
Girder span [m] Crane span [m] Rectangular Triangular
6 15 R-l T-l
6 30 R-2 T-2
12 15 R-3 T-3
12 30 R-4 T-4

Table 3
99% and 98% fractiles of the crane load effect
PDF of the R~nl.,x R, “IL” I L 99% fractiles [kN] 98% fractiles [kN]
trolley position [kN] [kN] [m] [m] A B C D A B C D
179.6 166.1 177.0 186.8 168.3 153.8 168.3 181.0
206.1 20.5 6 15
186.5 175.6 183.6 191.5 178.8 165.0 176.3 186.5
179.4 168.4 177.3 185.7 169.9 158.5 170.2 180.9
201.6 49.0 6 30
185.1 176.1 183.1 189.4 179.1 167.5 177.0 185.4
203.2 188.0 200.3 211.4 190.5 174.0 190.5 204.8
233.2 23.2 12 15
211.0 198.3 207.7 216.8 202.4 186.8 199.5 211.0
234.5 220.1 231.8 242.7 222.0 207.2 222.4 236.4
263.3 64.1 12 30
241.9 230.3 239.2 247.4 234.1 218.9 231.4 242.3

Fig. 6. PDFs of the pulse intensity. Type A of the frequency distribution of the lifted load, rectangular PDF of the
trolley position.
212 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety 17 11996) 205-224

s[kN]
Fig. 7. PDFs of the pulse intensity. Type A of the frequency distribution of the lifted load, triangular PDF of the
trolley position.

. According to the lifted load and geometrical relations, the 99%-fractiles give 80% to 92% of
the maximum vertical crane forces acting on the column (indicated by R,,,, in Table 3) for
the uniform PDF of the trolley position and 85% to 94% for the triangular PDF while
98%-fractiles range between the adequate intervals as follows: 75% to 90% and 80% to 92%
respectively.
* The particular values, shown in Table 3 are the 99% and 98%-fractiles of the vertical crane
forces, which are mainly dependent on the girder and crane spans, range between the
following values of the nominal, i.e. deterministic reactions obtained as the summation of the

0,030 ----7 ------ 7

L=6m L=15m

- - L = 6 m L - 30m

---- I=12m L= 15m

\
0.020 ,zrn
CA \\
f--f\ . . . . . L= L- TJom

-.- ’ I II
%” ‘\ ’
0.010 ------- ------- 4
,; \\‘r...
‘-., j
\ ‘\.
-I ,,, k, ( f,, , \k,‘,, , -4
0.000 I,, , ,$
’
00 to’.0 s[k& 80.0

Fig. 8. Arbitrary-point-in-time distribution functions fx$s). Type A of the frequency distribution of the lifted load,
triangular PDF of the trolley position.
 H. Pastemak et al. /Structural Safety I7 (I 996) 205-224 213

T---------
__ I=6m L=ISm
- - 1=6m L=30m :
---- I=IZm L=ISm :
... 1=121x1 L=30m '

I
0.0 II 11 ’ 1 ’ 1 “I
0.0 40.0 s[kN 180.0

Fig. 9. Mean upcrossing rate functions Y:(S). Type A of the frequency distribution of the lifted load, rectangular
PDF of the trolley position. (NCOL = 10).

products of each crane wheel load and influence ordinate under that load (intervals for
98%-fractiles are given in the parentheses):
1. for the uniform PDF of the trolley position 93% to 104% (87% to 102%),
2. for the triangular PDF of the trolley position 98% to 107% (94% to 104%).
It should be reminded that in the foregoing analysis the maximum value of the lifted load
is assumed to be 20% higher than its nominal value (see Fig. 4).
* Fig. 6 and 7 show the PDFs for one chosen frequency distribution (case A in Fig. 4) using
rectangular and triangular PDFs of the trolley position, respectively. The PDFs are pre-
sented for four cases of the girder and crane spans. It becomes noticeable that PDFs
preserve the same shape for all cases. The peaks (also the modal values) of the PDFs have a
slight tendency to be shifted to the right. The greatest peak has been always noticed for the
second span relation (i.e. I= 6m, L = 30m, where 1 and L are girder and crane spans
respectively). This is also true for other frequency distributions.
* Fig. 8 shows the APIT functions, whereas Fig. 9 the mean upcrossing rate functions for the
case A and analogically for different girder and crane spans. Fig. 8 concerns the triangular
distribution of the trolley position whereas Fig. 9 the rectangular one.

3. Model for two cranes

3.1. Introduction
When during its lifetime a building is subjected to two (or more) crane loads acting
simultaneously, then the problem of their combined action should be considered. Most studies
214 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety17 (1996) 205-224

Fig. 10. Pulse shapes formed by two cranes.

on load combination problems have been devoted to the approximate solutions of the
probability of the maximum value of the combined load effects for independent loadings
[9,10,13]. Recently, modelling and effect of load dependencies have received a great deal of
attention [13].
The objective of the following analysis is to describe random vertical forces caused by two
cranes that can move on the same crane track or in neighbouring bays.
In Fig. 10 the load effect process due to two cranes is presented. The wheel base of the crane
is described by eKT, (in the analysis hereafter cKr. is assumed to be identical for both cranes),
fmin indicates the minimal distance between two cranes on the same track and c is a constant
value relating eKT with time (i.e. c = LI-~, where c’ denotes a constant crane’s velocity), pud
stands for the mean pulse duration. For two cranes moving in neighbouring bays of a building:
it is assumed that fmin = 0. In addition to the actual trapezoid pulse shape, the rectangular
approximation is also indicated in Fig. 10.
The problem of the load effect due to two (or more) cranes working separately or together
on the same (or not) crane track is reduced hereafter to that of finding the mean upcrossing
rate function P;(T) and CDF, i.e. FR (r, T) in which R, is the maximum value of combined
load effects in time T whereas R is the combined load effect given by
R(t) = C,X,(t) + C2X2(f)
where Xi and X2 denote the vertical load processes of each working crane, C, and C, are
constant load effect coefficients.
 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety I7 (1996) 205-224 215

3.2. Point crossing method

In the following part the simplified analysis of the load effect combination due to two cranes
working independently is considered. The basic formula of the point crossing method describ-
ing the mean upcrossing rate function for the combination of two independent loads which
return to zero is as follows [9]:

4w = /I &*)4l(~ - 4 dz* + /= fx,(Z,)~XL(~ -21) dz, (12)

-m

where V;,(Z) = VEGA,,,,, for z I 0, V;,(Z) lmv.F , X,,on(z) for z I 0, f;(. > is expressed by Eq. (81;
vi is the mean arrival rate of pulses in the ith load process. It should be noted that Gx,,,J .>
and FX,,,,( *> are the distributions of the value of the process given that it is “on”. For
rectangular pulse processes these conditional distributions are equivalent to the distributions of
the peak value, i.e. G,,,,( .) = GS,C.> and F,,,,( 0) = F,(. 1. Finally, if S, and S, are always
positive and using relationship for the probability “on” of the ith process, i.e. qi = vdpd,, where
pd, is the mean pulse duration, one can write Eq. (12) as follows:

+ u%,+&) (13)
where vi2 = Y~Y~(P~,+ Pi,) [12] indicates the mean occurrence rate of coincidence for two
independent loads; p, stands for the probability “off” of the ith process.
In formula (13) S, + S, denotes the random variable that is the sum of the values of two
“on” pulses. For two cranes such a situation is restricted by the physical reality that two cranes
have to keep a minimal distance fmin which is determined by the type of the crane. The
minimal shift between two pulses of two cranes is shown in Fig. 11. Depicted situation is the
most inconvenient with respect to the superposition of two crane loads. Based on this
specification of the problem the mean occurrence rate of coincidence for two cranes in Eq. (13)

I
I -0~roximote
--- -
influence lines
= c*b -y)S, ‘;,,,= fmin-eKT Of R

Fig. 11. The minimal shift between two pulses and the relation between random peak values.
216 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety I7 (1996) 205-224

can be rewritten as a particular case of the last formula derived in Appendix A, i.e. without a
term describing dependencies among loads. It can readily be shown that
VI2 = ‘1’2(pd, ’ pdz - 2tmin) (14)

where fmin = Cfmin and c = u-r is the constant value aforementioned.

It should be noted that for other pulse shapes one can directly utilize Eq. (12). The
significance of Eq. (13) is as follows. For a load effect R(t) which is the sum of several load
effect processes (see Eq. (11)) there is a random variable R, = max R(t) that is the maximum
value of R(t) during the period of time T. The probability of events (R, is larger than r} can
be closely approximated for high values of r which are of most engineering interest by
G,_(r, T) I v;(r)T+ GR&r)T = vR+(r)T (15)
in which YR+(Y)is the mean upcrossing rate of R(t) described by Eq. (13) with regard to Eq.
(14); G,&r) is th e complementary CDF of the value of R(t) at c = 0. Therefore on the basis of
vR+(rl one can also calculate appropriate fractiles of the exceeded r values.

3.3. Occurrence “clustering” among loads

Usually loads on columns of buildings due to two cranes that move on the same crane track
have different arrival times and intensities. Sometimes they may have a much higher chance of
coincidence (in extreme cases two cranes have to put up the same component part). In other
words such loadings may be “clustered” around a common point in time. Processes with
“clustering” effects that can be understood as a kind of correlated processes, are discussed by
Cox and Lewis [2] and Wen [13]. The occurrence “clustering” among load processes consists in
the following idea (Fig. 12).
In Fig. 12 are denoted:

0 - Generating (parent) point process with the occurrence rate p,

A - Delay point process (may occur with probability Pi>,

X - Noise process with the occurrence rate pi,

T - Delay time (random),

‘i - Intensity given occurrence,

di - Duration given occurrence.

Loadings may be clustered around a common point in time where there is a much higher
chance of coincidence. In case of crane loads this point may be given by the manufacturing
cycle in the building. The point is indicated by “0” and the process is called the parent
process. This is a simple Poisson process with an occurrence rate p. The load may occur with a
 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety 17 (1996) 205-224 217

I 1I Clustering I ’ Clustering

Fig. 12. Example of two processes with clustering effects.

probability Pi at a random delay time T,. This process is indicated by “ a” and is called the
delay point process. To make the process more general, an independent noise or subsidiary
Poisson process with occurrence rate pi is generated and indicated by X “. This process makes
it possible to consider crane positions independent from each other (i.e. loadings which are not
generated by the parent process). The relation between P,, p, pi and vi (an occurrence rate of
the load Xi(t)) can be shown after Cox and Lewis [2] as
vi =pi +P;p. (16)
It appears that a superposition of “ A ” and “ X ” creates a simple stationary Poisson process
with the occurrence rate expressed by Eq. (16).
One of the most convenient ways for load combination analysis including the occurrence
correlation of a bivariate point process is through the use of conditional occurrence rate
(COR). It can be written [2,13] as follows:
h’:‘(t) = ~jm0(l/At)P{N(2)(t,t + At) 2 lJX,(t)is“on”at t = 0) (17)
I -*
where h\2’( t) = the COR function of X,(t) given X,(t) is “on” at t = 0; N’“’ = number of
occurrences of X,( t 1.
The hy’ is similarly defined by switching indices 1 and 2. One can show that the following
relation is fulfilled:
218 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety I7 (1996) 205-224

n
Pulse from CR2
A
P---c

fl Pulse ‘:“y CR1

l-s
c f,,“=tm,”
Fig. 13. Two situations of moving cranes.

where frLe71(t) defines PDF of the difference of the delay time T2 - T,; V, stands for mean
occurrence rate of a load X,; Pi and p are defined in Eq. (16). Exponential PDFs for the
independent random variables T, and T2 are considered.
Two possible occurrences of moving cranes with the minimum distance between them are
shown in Fig. 13. Assuming the Poisson type of upcrossings of the maximum value of load
effects over a time period T one can get an approximation of the probability distribution
P[ R,, < r in (0, T)] = FR,,(r, T)r = ew[ -+‘Gx,,,,(r) - v~TG~~,,,(~)
-
v12TG x,+x2,““(r)] (19)
where v,~ can be specified by (see the derivtions in Appendix A)
PlP2 1
V12g VlV2(Pd, + Pdz - 2tmin> ’ + -P- (20)
i VlV2 a1 +a2 I

where a, denotes the mean value of the delay time of the process i, i.e. ai = E(q).
It should be noted that after the rearranging of Eq. (20) one can apply Eq. (19) also to the
situation when two cranes move in neighbouring bays. In this case, the term connected with the
“clustering” effect in Eq. (20) as well as the shift between cranes should be omitted i.e. p = 0
and rmin = 0. In this way one obtains the probability distribution of the maximum load effect in
which the simultaneous occurrence among independent loads is assumed [12,13].

3.4. Numerical results for two cranes

Assume that Q,, and Q,, denote the appropriate fractiles (98% or 99%) for the particular
crane load effects, QR m stands for the fractile calculated by means of Eq. (19). Note that Q,, is
 H. Pasternak et al. / Structurul Safety I7 (I 996) 205-224 219

500.0 ____ ----c--------,----~--~-,

I
Prob.'off = 0.00
ZI Prob. off = 0.05 I
- - Prob. off = 0.10 I
--- Prob. off = 0.20 '
----. Prob. off = 0.40 '
400.0 ------ Prob. off = 0.60 -;
.-..~~ Prob. off = 0.90 ,

0.0) ,,,,,,I,,; ,,,,,,,,, iI,! I,,,, ?

0.0 50.0 100.0 rkN1 15 0.0

Fig. 14. Mean upcrossing rate functions ui fupcossings during 8 hours). Type A of the frequency distribution of the
lifted load, rectangular PDF of the trolley position. Rectangular pulses, P, = 1.0.

calculated on the basis of the PDF with a deterministic factor ( < 1) which refers to the position
of the second crane according to Fig. 11. A load combination factor may be introduced as

Qh
’ = Q,, + Qx2’
On the basis of the calculated examples one can notice that:
- The effect of different values of probability that loading is “off” on the mean upcrossing rate
function vR+(Y) for rectangular pulse shapes is quite important as shown in Fig. 14.
- Generally, the “clustering” effect between loads causes the G,,,Jr) to shift to the right and
thus increases the fractiles significantly (compare Table 4).

Table 4
Combination factors 9. Case A-R-l, a, = 5 s, T = 10 days
Pulse shape P, 1 - 4,
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.99 0.999
17 1.0 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.86 0.72 0.57
0.0 0.77 - - - - 0.53 - -
r\ 0.98 0.97
1.0 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.87 0.74
0.0 0.9 - - - - 0.57 - -
220 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety 17 (1996) 205-224

Fig. 15. Influence of the noise process on G,_(r). Type D of the frequency distribution of the lifted load, triangular
PDF of the trolley position. Trapezoid pulses: pi = 0.0, P, = 1.0.

Increasing ratios of the noise occurrence rate to the parent process occurrence rate lead to a
slight decrease of “clustering” effect (Fig. 15).
Increase in the expected value of the delay time decreases the clustering effect. This
influence is more conspicuous for smaller Y values (see Fig. 16).
The maximum of the crane load combination effect increases with the period of time. This
can be seen from Fig. 17. However, for sufficiently long periods the maximum values are no

Fig. 16. Effect of the delay time process. Type D of the frequency distribution of the lifted load, triangular PDF of
the trolley position. Trapezoid pulses, p, = 0.9, P, = 1.0.
 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety I7 (19961 205-224 221

day
days
days
days

Fig. 17. Influence of the period of time T. Type D of the frequency distribution of the lifted load, triangular PDF of
the trolley position. Trapezoid pulses, p, = 0.9, P, = 1.0.

longer statistically independent. Because of this one should not extrapolate to periods
beyond, e.g., 5 years. From tests it is known that the distribution of the load effects stabilizes
after 1 month [6] or 1000-3000 crane passages [7].

4. Conclusions

The problem of the combination of load effects considered as column reactions due to
overhead travelling cranes was investigated in this study. Cranes can work on the same crane
track or in neighbouring bays. In the first case, processes with “clustering” effects were used to
include the occurrence dependence between crane loads.
The complementary CDF of the maximum value of combined load effects over a time period
was discussed. Two types of pulse shapes (the trapezoid and its rectangular approximation)
were considered with the purpose of comparing numerical results. For rectangular pulses the
point-crossing method was also presented.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the analysis:
1. In the paper the 99% (GRUSIBAU [5]) and 98% (EUROCODE 1 [4]) fractiles were
considered as characteristic values of crane loads. According to the lifted load and geometri-
cal relations, the 99%-fractiles give 80% to 92% of the maximum vertical forces (denoted by
Rl3 in Table 3) for the uniform PDF of the trolley position and 85% to 94% for the
triiigular PDF while 98%-fractiles range between the adequate intervals as follows: 75% to
90% and 80% to 92% respectively. The values from 1.09 to 1.33 (for the uniform PDF) and
from 1.06 to 1.25 (for the triangular PDF) calculated on the basis of two different fractiles
222 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety I7 11996) 205-224

Table 5
Combination factors $ for a, = 5 s and T = 10 days
Pulse shape Case l- 4,
0.0 0.9

r\ D-T-l 0.91 0.88

D-T-2 0.17 0.74
D-T-3 0.90 0.87
D-T-4 0.76 0.73

give partial coefficients smaller than that suggested by DIN 18800/l [3] and EUROCODE 1
[4], i.e. yf= 1.5.
2. Fractile values of the vertical crane forces calculated in the paper are more dependent on
the distribution of the lifted load than the girder and crane spans.
3. For many practical cases, especially for:
* the independent operation of cranes (without “clustering”)
* the occurrences (= lo%-50% of the time) of the load process with “clustering” effects
(see Table 1 and 2 and 4)
* larger crane and girder spans (compare Tables 2, 3 and 5) the combination factor + is
smaller than 0.9 (given as a combination factor for two variable loadings according to DIN
18800/l and EUROCODE 1. The combination factors are closer to the values recom-
mended by Russian Code [ll].
4. Time dependencies between the operations of two cranes (i.e. “clustering” effects) on one
crane track may increase the load combination factor (compare Table 1 and 2 and 4). These
dependencies should not be neglected.
5. The dependency of the factor Q on the girder span is weaker than suggested by Bjelenja
(compare Table 6 and Fig. 1).
6. A cubic polynomial approximation is needed for describing the pulse shape if one takes into
account the continuous beam model of the craneway. The maximum value of the pulse
shape for such a model appears to be bigger than in the case of simply supported beams.
The error introduced by the simplified model depends on the quantity e,,/l. For different
cases analysed in the paper ( Table 1 and 2) the maximum error was not greater than 13%.
However, as it was previously mentioned, the maximum value of the lifted load was always
chosen 20% higher than the nominal load. This makes the results obtained herein certain to
be on the safe side.

Table 6
Combination factors 4. Case C-R-1
T ‘-9, Girder span [m]
[days] 1-l 3 6 12 24
5 10 0.9 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.90
5 10 0.0 0.89 0.87 0.85 0.82
20 30 0.9 0.94 0.93 0.91 0.89
20 30 0.0 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.81
 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety I7 (1996) 205-224 223

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the German Research Society (DFG) for the financial support of
the analysis.

Appendix A. Derivation of the mean occurrence rate of coincidence

The PDFs f,,pT,(r) for two cases from Fig. 13 can be expressed respectively
- Case A (7 2 d)

- Case B (7 2 0)

where a, = E(T,) is the mean value of the delay time of the process i.
According to Fig. 13 the coincidence of processes X,(t) and X&t) can happen in two
mutually exclusive ways:
1. X,(t) is “on” at t = 7 and X,(t) is “on” in (7, 7 + d,),
2. X,(t) is “on” at t = T and X,(t) is “on” in (T, T + d,),
where d, and d, stand for durations of pulses.
Therefore one can write

P (coincidence Id, , d 2)

=P[N(2’(~,r+d,)~11X,(t)is“on” E (~,~+ht)]

.P[X,(t)is“on” E (r,r+At)]

+P[Nc1)(r,~+d2)211X2(t)is“on” E (~,r+At)]

~P[X,(t)is“on” E (r,r+At)]

= g2(+& + g,(d&&
in which g, and g, indicate the conditional probabilities.
After taking expectation with respect to d, and d, and dividing by At -+ 0 (in the limit
sense), one obtains a first-order approximation of the mean rate of coincidence

VI2 =g2b-%flh + &(PdJ~2

in which Pi, and Pi, are the mean load effect durations.
224 H. Pasternak et al. /Structural Safety I7 (1996) 205-224

It can be shown that

g*(x) = 1 - exp

and for the PDF described by case A one gets (for x = pd, - tmin)

g2(Pd,) = l - exP - ‘2(Pd, - ‘min) -

Ifbd,
- i
tmin)/a2 -K 1, then an approximation

PIP2 P
for g, indicated by k2 is

k?,(kf,) = v2 + - ~ ( Pd, - ‘min))

i Vl a1 +a2

by analogy one can write

&bd,) = Vl +
i
and finally, the mean occurrence rate of coincidence is
PIP2 1
v12 g “Iv2(Pd, + Pd, - 2trnin) ’ + -P-
i VlV2 a1 +a2

References

[l] E.E. Belenja and A. Vasiljev, Osobiennosti dejstvitielnoj raboty podkranovych konstrukcyj (Singularity of
structural behaviour under crane loads), Stavebnicky Cusopis, 24 (1976) 857-886 (in Russian).
[2] D.R. Cox and P.A.W. Lewis, Multivariate point processes, Proc. 6th Berkeley Symp. on Mathematical Statistics,
1972, Vol. 3, pp. 401-448.
131 DIN 18800/l, Stahlbauten. Bemessung und Konstruktion (Steel structures. Design and calculation), Beuth-Verlag,
Berlin (1990) (in German).
[4] ENV 1991-1, Eurocode 1, Basis of design and actions on structures. Part 1, Basis of design, CEN/TC 250, 1992.
[5] Grundlagen zur Festlegung uon Sicherheitsanforderungen fiir bauliche Anlagen GRUSIBAU (Basis for the
assumption of safety requirements for buildings), Beuth-Verlag, Berlin (1981).
[6] I.V. Izosimov et al., Issliedovanije silovych vozdiejstvij ot mostovych kranov (Investigations of actions on
overhead travelling cranes), Metalliceskije Konstrukcji, Stroizdat (1966) 164-178.
171 A.I. Kikin et al., Povysenije dolgovecnosti metalliceskich konstrukcyj promyslennych zdanij (Extension of the
time life of the steel structure of industrial buildings), Izd. po Stroit., Moscow, 1969.
[8] U. Kiippe, Nutzlastkollektive von Kranen (Distribution of the lifted load for cranes), Hebezeuge und Fiirdermit-
tel 21 (1981) 36-39.
[9] R.D. Larrabee and CA. Cornell, Combination of various load processes, J. Strut. Die, ASCE, 107 (1) (1981)
223-239.
[lo] H.O. Madsen, Load models and load combinatins, Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Denmark, 1979.
[ill SNiP 11-6-74 (Russian Code), Stroitielnyje normy i pravila, Nagruzki i wozdiejstvija (Standards and regulations,
Loads and actions), Stroizdat, Moscow, 1976.
1121 Y.K. Wen, Statistical combination of extreme loads, J. Strut. Die, ASCE, 103 (5) (1977) 1079-1093.
[13] Y.K. Wen, Structural Load Modelling and Combination for Performance and Safety Evaluation, Elsevier,
Amsterdam (1990).