J. Construct.

Steel Research 6 (1986) 285-301

Economy of Higher-Strength Steels in Overhead

Travelling Cranes with Double-Box Girders

J. Farkas
Department of Materials HandlingEquipments, Technical University for Heavy
Industry, H-3515 MiskoicEgyetemvhros, Hungary

SYNOPSIS

In the case of a simple box beam subjected to uniaxial bending, the

cross-sectional area optimized with regard to stress constraint is inversely
proportional to the square root of" the yield stress. Therefore, increasing
the yield stress from 230 to 355 and 450 N/mm 2may result in mass savings
o f / 9 % and 28%, respectively. In the case of double-box main girders of
O T cranes the mass savings can be determined only by numerical
computations comparing the optimized cross sections. In the
optimization procedure the four dimensions of a box-section are found
which minimize the area of the cross section and satisfy the design
constraints. Constraints on static and fatigue stress, on local buckling of
flange and web plates, as well as on static deflection, are considered.
Numerical computations show that the mass savings depend on the crane
class~lication and on the constraints relating to the fatigue stress as well as
to static deflection.

NOTATION

a Distance of diaphragms.
b Width of flanges.
.t N o r m a l stress.
g Gravitational acceleration.
tt Height of webs.
pr, p~ D e a d loads from rail and sidewalk.
285
J. Construct. Steel Research 0143-974X/86/$03.50 © Elsevier Applied Science Publishers
Ltd. England. 1986. Printed in Great Britain
286 J, Farkas

tf, tw Flange and web thicknesses.

t Time.
w Deflection.
Wp Permissible deflection.
A Area of cross section.
E Young's modulus of elasticity.
F Wheel load.
G, Mass of trolley.
H Hook load.
I Moment of inertia of cross section.
Kt, Kw Flange and web buckling factors.
Kp Spectrum factor.
L Span length.
M Bending moment.
N Number of cycles.
P ~,b~ Basic tensile bending stress.
Pf, Permissible tensile fatigue stress.
Pp Permissible stress.
R fm,,/ fm,,.
W Section modulus.
Y~ Yield stress.
O~d Duty factor.
Y Safety factor.
hf, hw Flange and web slendernesses.
P Material density.
Impact factor.

1 INTRODUCTION

The application of higher strength steels may result in savings in mass,

cost and energy. The amount of saving depends on the type of structure,
loadings and design constraints. The savings in mass increase pro-
portionally with the yield stress only in the case of structural members
loaded in static tension, e.g. cylindrical shells of storage tanks.
Optimum design enables a realistic comparison to be made of various
solutions for a structure. ~To establish aids and rules for economic design.
detailed investigations are needed for important structural types and
applications. The author has carried out such investigations relating to
 Economy of higher-strength steels in double-box girder 0 T cranes 287

compression members, 2 hybrid I-beams subjected to bending, 3 planar

trusses welded from square tubes 4 and cellular plates.5 The aim of the
present paper is to investigate the mass savings achieved by using higher-
strength steels in OT cranes with two main box girders.
The savings in cross-sectional area in the case of a simple box beam
subjected to uniaxial bending, if the stress constraint is active, may be
expressed as 1
A"-A' - l_ J IP~ ~
Ao ~ Pp, ]

where Pp0 and Ppi are the permissible static tensile stresses of the actual
steels (Pp0 < Ppi). For steels of grade 43, 50 and 55 the corresponding
permissible stresses are 136,209 and 266 N/mm 2, respectively. Thus,

1-A~,A43= 1_J/136~209} = 0"193 and 1 -A43 = 0.285

A55

i.e. the use of grade 50 and 55 steels results in 19.3% and 28.5% mass
savings, respectively.
In the case of crane girders, the savings may be determined only by
numerical investigations because of the more complex biaxial bending
and fatigue as well as deflection constraints.

2 SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

For the calculations the rules of standard BS 25736 have been used. This
standard does not give a detailed method for checking for the buckling of
webs subjected to bending and shear combined with a transverse wheel
load. For this check the method of BS 5400 Part 3 7was used. Note that the
notation of BS 2573 is used here (BS 5400 uses a different notation).
Three types of steel are considered within BS 2573 as follows: grade 43,
50 and 55 steel with yield stresses of 230, 355 and 450 N/mm 2, res-
pectively. Investigations ~.3show that, in structures subjected to bending,
hvbrid I-beams, with flanges made of steel'of higher strength than the
web, result in a more economical solution than when the cross section is
kept homogeneous. Unfortunately, the design standards do not treat
hvbrid girders.
288 J. Farkas

7 71
-'1 t"

ct) b) cl
Fig. 1. Structural versions of main girders of an overhead travelling crane: (a) double box,
rails over the inner webs, (b) double box, rails at the center. (c) single box.

Several structural solutions may be used for the main girders (Fig. 1):
single- or double-box girders. The present paper considers only double-
box girders. The rails on such girders may be at the centerline or over the
inner webs. Investigations 8 have shown that rails at the centerline are less
economical. If the rails are over the inner webs, these webs should be
checked for buckling taking into account the compression stresses due to
the wheel load. In this paper longitudinal stiffeners are considered at
one-fifth the height of the web. Note that the thicknesses of webs may be
different. Investigations relating to the economic design of single- and
double-box girders have been carried out by Kos. ~ "'
For purposes of comparison it is sufficient to investigate only the cross
sections at midspan. These sections are predominantly loaded in bending,
and shear stresses may be neglected. One other simplification is that the
rail and the stiffeners are neglected in the calculation of the cross-
sectional characteristics (Fig. 2). The design of the stiffeners is not treated
here.
BS 2573 does not contain rules related to static and dynamic stiffness.
Certain other standards prescribe the static deflection and/or the
vibration damping ability, for example, the AISE Standard t~ gives a
limitation of L~ I(X~Ofor the static deflection due to live load. According to
the Soviet design rules. ~2the allowable static deflections are as follows: for
light and medium duty. L/6IX); for heavy and extra-heavy duty cranes.
 Economy of higher-strength steels in double-box girder O T cranes 289

L/700. The Czechoslovak standard (~SN 270103 ~sprescribes the maximum

time 7m~ <- 15 s for decreasing the amplitude to 0.5 ram. Kos t4 has
investigated the calculation of this time considering the crane and the
hook load as a two-mass system. This calculation does not take into
account friction damping in connections as well as between the rails and
flange plates. The measurements carried out by Soviet researcherslS have
shown that the beneficial effect of friction damping may significantly
decrease the tm,~ value. In the present investigation, only a static
deflection constraint is considered.

3 O B J E C T I V E FUNCTION AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

The cross-sectional area is taken as the objective function to be

minimized (Fig. 2):
A = 2(ht~+btf) (1)

I
iO,2h

II

tw

If
r
b P

Fig. 2. Dimensions of a box-section (the parts of cross-section indicated by hatching are

neglected in calculations).
290 J. Farkas

Constraint on the static stress in the lower flange at midspan due to the
load combination 'crane in use without wind" (L t+ L3 + Hi), where L L
denotes dead loads, L3 live loads, including the hook load multiplied by
t h e i m p a c t factor ~Od,and H1 horizontal loads due to inertia forces. Note
that the wind load, buffer loads and skew loads due to travelling are not
considered here.
M~ + My
" --<adPbtb~ = Pp (2)
Wx Wy

Pb, has = 0"59Ys for plate girders with multiple webs with h/tw greater than
85, 75 and 65 for steel of grade 43, 50 and 55, respectively, ad = 0-85-1.0
duty factor depending on crane type and application.
Approximate formulae for moments of inertia are

h3tw btfh z
Ix - T ~T (3)

b3tf htwb 2
ly - 6 ~T (4)

Section moduli are

h2t. b2tf
Wx- 3 ~-bhtf; Wy- 3 +bht* (5)

Bending m o m e n t due to vertical loads is

'2
M~ = .~(1.05pA+p~+p~)g+ L- (6)

where the factor of 1-05 expresses the mass of diaphragms, g = 10 m/s-"

and p = 7850 kg/m 3, k is the distance between the trolley axes; the wheel
load is F = (qJ~/+ G,)/4. Bending m o m e n t due to horizontal loads is
t 2
(7)

where the 0.5 factor recognises that from the four trolley wheels only two
are driven. The 0.3 factor represents the effect of inertia forces according
to the G e r m a n standard DIN 15018.16
Constraint on fatigue stress in the lower flange at midspan due to the
 Economy of higher-strengthsteelsin double-boxgirderOT cranes 291

load combination ( L I + L 4 + H O , where L4 denotes the live loads

including the hook load multiplied by the impact factor and the nominal
load spectrum factor Kp.

M" +My
Pt~ (8)
W~ Wy

where Pn is the permissible tensile fatigue stress depending on the class of

constructional detail, on the number of cycles N (class of utilization), on
the stress ratio R = f,,i,/fm~, but is independent of the type of steel.

M[, = -~(l'05pA +p~+pOg+-~ L - ~ (9)

F' - Kp~bdH+ G,
4

Numerical calculations will determine whether the static or fatigue

stress constraint is active, because of the various values of Kp, ad, ~bdand
Pf,. If the fatigue constraint is active, the application of higher strength
steels does not result in mass savings, since the Pn value is independent of
the steel grade.
For example, in the case of a crane of extra-high duty (classA8) Kp = 1,
ad = 0.85, for steel of grade 43, Pp43 = 0.85 x 136 = 115.6 N/mm 2, for
steel of grade 50, Pps0 = 0.85 x 209 = 177-6 N/mm ~, for N = 2 x 10 6,
f~,o/fmax = 0"2, for class F of constructional detail (e.g. box girders
fabricated with transverse load-carrying or non-load-carrying fillet
welds). Pf, = 93 N/mm-" < Pp. Thus, it is clear that the fatigue constraint is
active and the application of grade 50 steel does not result in mass savings.
On the other hand, if only constructional details of class D are used (e.g.
box girders fabricated with continuous longitudinal fillet welds with
stop-start positions within the weld length), P~ = 153 N/mm2> Pp43.
Thus the application of grade 50 steel may be economical.
One can conclude that to achieve certain mass savings, improved
welded constructional details should be designed and fabricated.
• Local buckling constraint for the upperflange according to BS 5400 Part
3:

+ {\ / 2< 1: - w, : - M,.
w,. ( lo)
292 J. Farkas

where

Klf = 1 when b / { Ys' ) _<24

2 4 ) 0.75
glf = ~-'7 when 24< hf<-47

= when 47 < he-< 130

Kbf = 1.3 - 0.0027hr.

N o t e t h a t Ys/(yfLyf3y~) in BS 5400 is replaced here by Pp = 0.59 ad Y~.

This a p p r o x i m a t i o n is on the safe side because y~.yray~ = 1.5 × l-1 ×
1-05 = 1.7325 = 1/0.5772 a n d 0.59 x 0.95 = 0.5605.
Local buckling constraint for the upper part of" the inner web of height
hi = h!5:
,/[(o.=,.+,A
where

Klw = 1 when M, -
o.2h/f .
~ '%/k3-~ ] - < 2 4

= when 24<hw<-47

= when 47<M,~130

Kb,, = 1.3 - 0.0027M,.

A n a p p r o x i m a t e f o r m u l a for the compressive stress d u e to the wheel load

m a y be w r i t t e n as

F
]~-- ; ac[mm] = 5 0 + 3 ( h ~ - 5 + t O (12)
twae
 Economy of higher-strengthsteelsin double-boxgirderOT cranes 293

w h e r e h r is the height of the rail. F u r t h e r m o r e

h e = 1 •9 N/[aeh
/ t ~ - ~ - ] ~.
, K , , _ ( 3-4 + 2 "5a2 h ~] ( a0"4+~a
e)

w h e r e a is the distance between the diaphragms.

K2w = 1 when X 0 = ~h<

/ I[r.k3--g-g]<_24

= when 24<M-<43

= {28~ °68
K2~ ~M ] when 43 < he <--59

= f3o o7,
K:, \he] when 59< M_<90

= / 3 6 ~ °'~'
K2w \ he ] when 90 < he-< 130.

Static deflection constraint. Assuming that the cross-section is constant

along the whole girder, the m a x i m u m deflection due to wheel loads m a y
be expressed as

H(L - k) [3L-"- (L - k)2] <- wp

Wmax - 4 x 4 8 E / ,
(13)

w h e r e wp is the permissible deflection.

4 OPTIMIZATION PROCEDURE AND NUMERICAL RESULTS

T h e values of h, b, t~ and tf are to be found which minimize the objective

function and satisfy the design constraints. T o solve this p r o b l e m the
combinatorial discrete backtrack p r o g r a m m i n g m e t h o d is used t which is
suitable for structures fabricated from plates of r o u n d e d (discrete)
294 J. Farkas

thicknesses and widths. A Fortran program was developed for com-

putations on a PDP-type computer.
Numerical example
To illustrate the mass savings, computations have been performed with
the following data: H = 200 kN, L = 22.5 m, G, = 42.25 kN, k = 1-9 m,
h r = 70 m m , a = L/IO, p r + p s = 190 kg/m, E = 2 . 1 × 105 N/mm-'.
Three states of loading are considered with characteristics given in Table
1. The P~ values, calculated with approximate formulae, are also given in
Table 1 with the function R = fmi°/fm~ valid for 0.1 <-R-< 0.3, R =
Mxl/ M x,
L2
Mx, = --~-(l.05pA +pr+ps)g.

The list of discrete values for the variables is as follows:

h: from 400 up to 1150 in steps of 50 mm

b: from 250 up to 625 in steps of 25 mm
tf: 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 mm
tw: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 mm.

The results are given in Tables 2, 3 and 4. The active constraints are
indicated in bold type. Note that the slenderness of some.4-5 mm thick
webs exceeds the limit prescribed by BS 2573, Section 7.3.2.2.2, for
stiffened open sections but satisfies the buckling constraint of BS 5400.

5 DISCUSSION

The optimal dimensions of a crane girder depend mainly on the following

parameters: hook load, span length, state of loading, fatigue class, yield
stress of steel and permissible static deflection. It would be excessive to
give detailed numerical results for all combinations. Computations show
similar tendencies for different hook loads and span lengths, except for
small values of these variables.
For example, in the case of H = 5 0 0 0 N and L = 10.5 m and
permissible static deflections of L/800, L/900 and L~ 1000 as in Table 3,
the mass savings decrease to 3 % - 5 % because of the size constraint
tw -> to = 4 mm. This tendency can easily be explained for the case of a box
 TABLE 1
Parameters of Cranes Considered

State
of Kp IO-~N ad ~d Group P[t(N/mm 2)for fatigue class
loading
D F
light 0-50 0.5 1.00 1.1 A4 169 + 145 (R - 0-1) 112 + 125 (R - 0-1)
moderate 0.63 1.0 0-95 1-3 A6 155+135(R-0.1) 97+105(R-0.1)
heavy 0.80 2.0 0-90 1.4 A8 142+125(R-0.1) 83+ 95(R-0-1)

..q

t~
 ,4D
O~

TABLE 2
Characteristics of the Optimal Cross Sections for Cranes of Fatigue Class D and for Permissible Static Deflections L/500, L/600 and
L/700 for 10-6N = 0.5, 1.0 and 2-0, Respectively. (Dimensions in mm, Stresses in N/mm2.)

Savings Fulfilment o f constraints on

IO-ON Ys h t., b O A Ao-Ai
(mm 2) A,, static fatigue deflection
% stress stress

230 1050 6 400 14 23800 0 130<136 9 5 < 193 29"8 < 45-0
0-5 355 950 5 375 14 20000 16 159<209 116<191 4 i f 0 < 45.0
450 1050 5 375 10 18000 24 174<266 125<189 43-2<45-0

230 1150 7 375 14 26600 0 1 2 9 = 129 102<175 25.2 < 37.5

1-0 355 1050 6 325 14 21 700 18 165< 199 130< 173 35-5 < 37-5
450 1000 5 325 16 20400 23 170<253 133< 172 36-1 < 37.5

230 1150 7 450 14 28 700 0 119 < 122 105 < 160 21-7<32.1
2-0 355 1000 6 325 18 23 700 17 157< 188 139< 158 31.7<32-1
450 1050 5 425 14 22 400 22 149<239 131 < 157 29-0<32.1
 r~
TABLE 3
Characteristics of the Optimal Cross Sections for Cranes of Fatigue Class D and for Permissible Static Deflections L/800, L/900 and
L~ 1000 for 10 6 N = 0-5, 1.0 and 2.0, Respectively. (Dimensions in mm, Stresses in N/ram2.)

Savings Fulfilment of constraints on

lO -aN Y.~ h t~. b tf A Ao-Ai
(mm 2) Ao static fatigue deflection
% stress stress

230 1100 6 400 14 24 400 0 123< 136 9 0 < 193 2"/-0< 28.1
0-5 355 1150 4 325 16 19 600 20 140<209 104< 190 2"/.'/<28.1
450 1150 4 325 14 19 600 20 140<266 104< 190 27.7<28-1 g:

230 1050 6 525 14 27 300 0 117<129 9 2 < 175 2 3 . 6 < Y,~.0

1o0 355 1150 4 325 18 20 900 23 143< 199 113 < 172 2 4 - 9 < 25-0
450 1150 4 325 18 20 900 23 143<253 113< 172 24.9<25.0

230 1150 7 450 14 28 700 0 119<122 105< 160 21-7 < ~'~.5
2.0 355 1050 4 475 18 25 500 11 120< 188 106< 159 21.3< ~-$
450 1150 4 475 14 22 500 21 130<239 114< 157 :~1.3 < ~r~'$

I,O
 t-O
00

TABLE 4
Characteristics of the Optimal Cross Sections for Cranes of Fatigue Class F and for Permissible Static Deflections L/500, L/600 and
L/708 for 10-6N = 0-5, 1.0 and 2-0, Respectively. (Dimensions in ram, Stresses in N/ram2.)

Savings Fulfilment o f constraints on

10 -6 Ys h tw b tf A Ao-Ai
(mm 2) Ao static ]atigue deflection
% stress stress

230 1050 6 400 14 23 800 0 130 < 1216 95 < 133 29-8 < 45-0
0.5 355 950 5 375 14 20 080 16 159 < 209 116 < 131 40-0 < 45-0
450 1050 5 375 10 18 OOO 24 174 < 266 125 < 4 3 . 2 < 45.0

230 1150 7 375 14 26 600 0 129 = 129 102< 113 25-2 < 37-5
1-0 355 1000 5 475 14 23 300 12 138 < 199 IN < IU 29-2 < 37-5
450 1150 5 400 14 22 700 15 135<253 106<111 25-3 < 37-5

230 1050 6 500 18 30 600 0 108 < 122 95 < 97 19-6 < 32.1
2.0 355 1150 5 575 14 27 600 10 107 < 188 95 < 96 18-4 < 32-1
450 i 150 5 575 14 27 600 10 107 < 239 95 < 96 18.4<32-1
 Economy of higher-strength steels in double-box girder OT cranes 299

b e a m subjected to uniaxial bending. The deflection constraint (eqn (13))

may be written in the form

Ix - h3tw + bhh 2 > Io - H ( L - k) [3L 2 - ( L - k) 2]

6 2 4 x 48Ewp

and the size constraint is tw -> to. Using eqn (1) to obtain

410 4hto
A = -~--+ 3

T h e condition d A / d h = 0 yields

hopt= 3/ ( 21° ~
4\ 70 /
and

Amin = 2~hop, to = 6"4063 ~/(lot 2) (14)

E q u a t i o n (14) shows that in this case the required cross-sectional area is

i n d e p e n d e n t of permissible stress, thus the use of higher-strength steels
does not result in mass savings. This tendency may also be seen in Table 3.
For Ys = 355 N/mm:, the optimal web thickness equals the minimum
value of 4 m m , thus, the further increase of yield stress does not decrease
the cross-sectional area, because the size constraint becomes active.
It should be noted that the minimum plate thickness of 4 m m is the
lowest possible from the point of view of fabrication; in some factories
tm~, = 5 m m is used.
T h e savings in Table 3 show an irregularity: for N = 0-5 × 106 and
1.0 x 10 ~, they are the same for Ys = 355 and 450 N / m m 2(20% and 23%,
respectively), but for N = 2.0 x 106 they are different (11% and 21%,
respectively). This is caused by the use of discrete values. Since the steps
between the discrete values applied in the computations are not small, the
measure of mass savings may show certain scatter.
The values of Tables 2 and 3 show that the static stress constraint is
active only for Y~ = 230 N / m m :. In all other cases, the deflection
constraint is active. When the size and fatigue constraints are passive,
the mass savings are considerable. Active fatigue constraints cause
significant decrease of mass savings, as seen in Table 4 for N = 1.0 x
10 -~and 2"0 × 10~.
300 J. Farkas

6 CONCLUSIONS

(1) For structures of fatigue class D, the fatigue stress constraint is

passive. Therefore, significant mass savings may be achieved. Since
the deflection constraint is active, the savings are less than those for
uniaxial bending when only the stress constraint is active. Using steel
of grade 50 and 55 instead of grade 43, mass savings of 16%-18% and
2 2 % - 2 4 % may be achieved, respectively. If more limiting deflection
constraints are prescribed, the mass savings decrease. The webs then
become more slender so that their slenderness does not satisfy, the
requirements of BS 2573 but fulfils those of BS 5400.
(2) For structures of fatigue class F, in the case of heavy and extra-heavy
duty cranes, the fatigue stress constraint is active. The mass savings
are therefore very small, being about 10% for steels of both grade 50
and 55. For light and medium duty cranes, the fatigue stress con-
straint is passive. Mass savings are then similar to those for structures
of fatigue class D.
(3) If the constraints on minimum web thickness and on deflection are
active, mainly in the case of small hook loads and span lengths, mass
savings cannot be achieved.

REFERENCES

1. Farkas, J., Optimum design of metal structures, Chichester, Ellis Horwood,

1984.
2. Farkas, J., "Optimum square hollow sections for centrally and eccentrically
compressed steel members', Third international colloquium, Stability of"
metal structures, Final Report, Paris, 1983, pp. 121-5.
3. Farkas, J., "Economy of the application of higher-strength steels in com-
pression members.of welded square box cross section and in hybrid l-
beams', Seventh international conference, Metal structures, Proceedings,
Vol. 3, Gdansk, 1984, pp.77--84.
4. Farkas, J., 'Economy achieved by using higher-strength steels in trusses
welded from square hollow sections', Second international conference,
Welding of" tubular structures, Proceedings, Boston, USA, 1984, Oxford-
New York, Pergamon Press, pp. 137--44.
5. Farkas, J., "Effect of yield stresses and welding costs on the optimum design
of cellular plates', 14th Czechoslovak conference, Steel structures, Pro-
ceedings, Vol. !, Kosice, 1985, pp.205-8.
6. British Standards Institution, BS 2573: Part I, Rules for the design of cranes.
 Economy of higher-strength steels in double-box girder OT cranes 301

specification for classification, stress calculations and design criteria for struc-
tures, London, BSI, 1983.
7. British Standards Institution, BS 5400: Part 3, Code of practice for design of
steel bridges, London, BSI, 1982.
8. Farkas, J., 'Optimale Dimensionierung yon Kranhaupttr/igem mit Kasten-
profil', IlL KoUoquium iiber Krane, Kran '80, Vortriige, Budapest,
Wissenschaftlicher Verein fOr Maschinenbau, 1980, pp.29--41.
9. Kos, M., Zweitr~igerkranbriicke mit rechteckigen Kastentr[igen, Stahlbau,
52 (1983) 339--43.
10. Kos, M., ldber die Tragkonstruktion der Eintr~igerkrane, Stahlbau, 49
(1980) 281--6.
11. Association of Iron and Steel Engineers, AISE Standard No. 6,
Specification of electric overhead travelling cranes for steel mill services,
Pittsburgh, USA, AISE, 1969.
12. Institute of Research Information for Mechanical Engineering of Heavy and
Transportation Machinery, RTM 24.090.30-77, Technical rules, Overhead
travelling cranes, Codes of design, Moskva, 1978 (in Russian).
13. CSN 270103, Design of steel structures of cranes, Praha, 1970 (in Czech).
14. Kos, M., Bemerkungen zur dynamischen Stabilit~it yon Kranen, F6rdern
und Heben, 30 (1980) 997-1000.
15. Pavlov, M. E. and Rozenshtein, B. M., "Calculations of the strength and
stiffness of main girders of overhead travelling cranes', Investigations of
mechanisms and metal structures of cranes, Publications of VNIIPTMASH,
Moskva, 1983, pp.87-96 (in Russian).
16. DIN 15018, Krane, Grundsiitze fiir Stahhragwerke, Berechnung, 1974.