Competitive Assessment of Ice and Frozen Silt Mat for

Crane Ground Support Using Finite-Element Analysis

Ghulam Muhammad Ali, S.M.ASCE 1; Joe Kosa 2; Ahmed Bouferguene 3; and
Mohamed Al-Hussein, M.ASCE 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: High capacity cranes are the backbone of the heavy construction industry, which, over the last few years, has embraced mod-
ularization. Consequently, ground stability has become a critical issue for their safe utilization. In practice, ground stability includes laying
several thicknesses of adequately compacted construction aggregates and one or more layers of timber/steel mats on top. In the present study,
a novel alternative is explored whereby an artificially created layer of ice or frozen silt constitutes the base upon which timber or steel mats can
be stacked for ancillary crane support. However, to understand the challenges and feasibility of the proposed technology, a theoretical study
using finite-element analysis (FEA) is carried out in order to gain insight into the factors that can affect the structural behavior of ice/frozen silt
and their comparison with commonly used mat materials, timber (Coastal Douglas fir), and steel (G40.21-44W). The comparison is built
using mechanical properties under identical boundary conditions. The results show that the performance of frozen silt is on par with that of
Coastal Douglas fir. A preliminary cost comparison is also established to develop the value proposition of using frozen silt as a crane mat.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002046. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Ground bearing pressure; Finite-element analysis (FEA); Crawler crane; Hydraulic crane; Crane mats; Frozen silt; Ice.

Introduction
The modern heavy construction industry is increasingly adopting
modularization as its primary design and project delivery paradigm.
The projects are broken down into elements (known as modules)
that are fabricated independently in a controlled environment,
leaving a single activity to be carried out outdoors, namely, the
assembly of these modules. Over time, designing and fabricating
modules has become more efficient and thus has encouraged en-
gineers to front-load these modules with an increasing number
of functionalities so to minimize onsite work. However, the draw-
back of maximizing the functionality of a module is the resulting
weight of the modules, which, a few decades ago, measured a few
tons and has jumped in recent years to tens if not hundreds of tons.
With the emergence of this new weight constraint, a new generation
of lifting equipment characterized by a high lifting capacity has
been developed. However, this higher capacity is synonymous with
increased structural complexity and heavier weights. Furthermore,
the surge in demand for crane work has caused an increase in the
number of crane accidents, which in return has increased the num-
ber of fatalities. To ensure that such heavy cranes operate safely on
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 1H9 (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1335-6191. Email: gmali@ualberta.ca
2
Engineering Manager, NCSG Crane & Heavy Haul Corporation,
28765 Acheson Rd., Acheson, AB, Canada T7X 6A8. Email: joe.kosa@
ncsg.com
3
Professor, Campus Saint-Jean, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB,
Canada T6C 4G9. Email: ahmed.bouferguene@ualberta.ca
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 1H9. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0002-1774-9718. Email: mohameda@ualberta.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 9, 2020; approved on
December 8, 2020; published online on March 19, 2021. Discussion period
open until August 19, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction En-
gineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
construction sites, the first order of business is to ensure that the soil
bearing capacity of the ground can accommodate the pressure ex-
erted by the crane due to the compounded weights of the crane and
payload. Beavers et al. (2006) conducted a study on crane-related
accidents on construction sites in the United States, and according
to the research, per Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) data, the fatality rate of the construction industry (US) in
2001 reached 13.3 fatalities per 100,000 construction workers. In
addition, the same research also stated that between 1997 and 2003,
approximately 84% of crane and derrick fatalities were of the work-
ers involved in crane operations (such as crane operators, signal
men, and riggers). A crane tip-over accounted for approximately
11% of crane accidents connected with onsite mobile crane oper-
ation, with the major cost driver being poor ground support
(Beavers et al. 2006). To prevent crane accidents related to ground
failure, systematic education systems for those working with cranes
also need to be developed (Lee et al. 2020). In practice, the design
of ground support for mobile crane stability requires (1) the evalu-
ation of the ground bearing pressure (GBP) (Pa) under the tracks of
the crawler crane or pad load (PL) (kN) under the outriggers in the
case of a hydraulic truck crane; and (2) the design of one or more
layers, usually in the form of mats, to maintain an overall pressure
exerted by crane tracks/outriggers below the soil bearing capacity.
Traditionally, the calculation of GBP/PL under crane tracks/
outriggers is carried out according to a procedure in which the
weights of the crane-payload system components are assumed to
be static forces that generate pressure on the ground. The carrier
has a fixed center of gravity (COG), but the superstructure COG
revolves based on the lifting radius and the angle of the boom.
Shapiro and Shapiro (2010) present in-depth, detailed calculations
for GBP and PL covering all crane weights and their COGs. It is
important to note that although these applications have proven to be
useful to heavy construction practitioners, their output is often lim-
ited to pressure values that are calculated at specific points selected
beforehand by the user (Al-Hussein et al. 2000; Hasan et al. 2010;
Shapiro and Shapiro 2010; Wu et al. 2011). As a result, using an

© ASCE 04021038-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038

 alternative procedure built upon finite-element analysis (FEA) not
only allows the pressure to be mapped in a quasi-continuous
manner, but more importantly, it provides a means to check the
accuracy of previously developed calculation tools. In the present
research, the calculation of the GBP under the crawlers (or PL
under outriggers) is carried out using FEA with the aim of under-
standing the geometric conditions under which four different
supports, i.e., ice, frozen silt, Coastal Douglas fir, and steel
(G40.21-44W), exhibit similar structural behavior. In practical
terms, there exists a significant gap between mat production and
mat demand, and the market demand for mats continues to outpace
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mat production (Ali et al. 2019a, b).
As a result, the aim of this research is to propose an alternative
(or a complementary) solution for traditional crane ground support
used for heavy lifting projects. The proposed technology uses ar-
tificially frozen material, i.e., ice or frozen silt, to improve the
ground bearing capacity, which in turn will help reduce the number
of layers of traditional mats required. Although ground freezing
may not seem economically viable because of its requirements
in terms of energy, artificial freezing technology can be suitable
in cold regions, such as the northwestern region of Canada, where
the ambient temperature in winter is already close to freezing. For
instance, the Encana Cutbank Ridge project, in Dawson Creek,
British Columbia, Canada (N55.7596, W120.2377), was a fast-
tracked project with 120 major heavy lifts for which the Manitowoc
18000 and Liebherr LR1300 cranes were used. The project was
completed ahead of schedule, and the plant was operational in
2018 (Newton 2017). Most of the lifts were performed in winter
(November, December, January, February, and March), as shown
in Fig. 1. For this project, 3,500 timber mats (4 ft × 20 ft × 12 in:)
were used for ground stability under crawler cranes. According to
metrological data from Environment Canada for the period 1981–
2010, on average, approximately 13.5 days in November are
below freezing (i.e., the daily maximum temperature is below 0°
C). Similarly, based on the same weather data, 18.8 days in Decem-
ber, 20 days in January, 16.4 days in February, and 11.8 days in
March are below freezing, which means those days may be suitable
for the use of frozen silt or ice mat (Environment and Climate
Change 2019).
Furthermore, the city of Fort McMurray (N56.7264,
W111.3803), Canada, which has seen major heavy construction
projects over the last few years, could be an excellent candidate
Fig. 1. Winter crane lifts at Encana Cutbank Ridge Project, Dawson Creek, Canada. (Images by authors.)
© ASCE 04021038-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038
because, on average, the daily maximum temperature is below 0°C
for most of the days in winter (December–February) (Environment
and Climate Change 2019). Two of the many planned future oil and
gas projects in that area are (1) the Meadow Creek East SAGD
Project (total estimated value: $1.5 billion; scheduled for 2019–
2023), and (2) Aspen Oil Sands Project (total estimated value:
$4.0 billion; scheduled for 2018–2022) (Alberta Government
2019).
Another cold region in North America for potential application
of this technology is the state of Alaska, where many regions
exhibit similar temperatures to those in northern Canada. For in-
stance, in Anchorage (61.2167N, 149.9000W), the average mini-
mum ambient temperature, based on historical data spanning the
period 1952–2005, is below −10°C in the winter months of
December, January, and February, and the temperature is below
0°C most of the time during the months of November through
February (Western Regional Climate Center 2020). One example
of a potential application is the $2 billion Port of Alaska upgrade
project, specifically the petroleum and cement terminal facility
(Slowey 2020).
Although AGF as a stabilization technology for high-capacity
cranes is explored in this study in the context of northern Canada
(and other regions of North America with similar climates), where
low ambient temperatures (for extended periods) can aid the freez-
ing process, this technology can also be applied in regions with
warmer temperatures. However, for these cases, the cost of freezing
the ground and maintaining it at the targeted temperature is ex-
pected to be costly. As a result, this factor is likely to steer
practitioners toward traditional technologies that can be more
cost-effective. At this juncture, to be a viable solution for industry,
the proposed alternative (ice and frozen silt) needs to satisfy at least
two conditions: (1) the materials must have structural viability that
can ensure safety; and (2) the technology needs to be cost-effective.
This research focuses mainly on the first aspect in the context of
which structural properties of ice and frozen silt are modeled and
compared with those of Douglas fir and steel (G40.21-44W).
Subsequently, in this contribution, a preliminary cost comparison
to estimate the cost-effectiveness of this new technology, provided
that the ambient temperature satisfies the requirement for the
freezing process, is presented.
To build on the findings reported in this study, the research pro-
ceeds according to the following roadmap. First, the FEA model of
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 the crane, i.e., Manitowoc 18000 (crawler) and Grove GMK 7550
(hydraulic) are validated for GBP/PL by comparing the FEA out-
puts for GBP/PL with those provided by the manufacturer’s soft-
ware. The goal of this comparison is to ensure that the parameters
of FEA crane models, e.g., the weight of each element and the lo-
cation of the center of gravity, are all sound. The next step is to
model the dynamic ground pressure for each of the selected cranes
and support materials as the superstructure is rotating under similar
boundary conditions (such as ground properties, payload, crane
configuration, crane rotation, crane part weights and COGs, and
mat placement) as used for the GBP and PL calculations. From this
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
analysis, the thickness of a slab of ice and frozen silt is designed in
such a way as to achieve a similar structural behavior (stress and
deflection as the main parameters) to that of Coastal Douglas fir
and steel (G40.21) with standard dimensions. Subsequently, based
on the results of frozen silt and timber mats, the cost comparison
for the use of frozen silt instead of timber mart is developed. The
present study then includes a conclusion that mainly depends on
the mechanical properties and a preliminary cost comparison.
Finally, the recommendations and future research opportunities
are presented.
Literature Review
Based on the constraints of the lifts, mobile cranes are selected from
among various types and shapes; however, the taxonomy of high
capacity mobile cranes, as commonly defined by practitioners, re-
lies on two major attributes: (1) the type of boom, i.e., telescopic
(also known as hydraulic) or lattice; and (2) the type of traction,
i.e., wheels or tracks (Fig. 2). It is important to note that, world-
wide, crawler cranes have always performed the lifts with the
Fig. 2. Taxonomy of cranes.
© ASCE 04021038-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038
heaviest loads because some of the crawler cranes have a capacity
exceeding 2,000 metric tons. Despite the complexity of the tax-
onomy tree shown in Fig. 2, mobile cranes are typically composed
of three major elements: (1) the boom; (2) the superstructure (or
upper structure), which rotates during the lifting process; and
(3) the carrier (or chassis), which includes the traction system
(wheels or tracks) that is in direct contact with the ground through
the tracks or outriggers. The latter components are at the interface
between the ground and the crane-payload system, which is the
area where the forces and reactions are exerted. The properties
of these forces, i.e., magnitude and directions, are investigated
by means of FEA, which allows the determination of the lower
bounds of the GBP required for a safe lifting process. In the liter-
ature that examined applications of FEA to the modeling of crane-
related issues, the emphasis has primarily been put on the determi-
nation of the conditions under which boom buckling occurs (Anlin
et al. 2012; Huang and Ji 2013; Marquez et al. 2014; Yao et al.
2015; Zdravković et al. 2019). Although FEA can be applied to
crane buckling under any loading condition, i.e., static or dynamic,
FEA is particularly suitable and essential in the context of dynamic
loading because it makes the Newtonian mechanical complexity of
the problem manageable, which explains why this method has been
at the core of many investigations that were devoted to crane boom
buckling (Haniszewski 2017).
Regarding FEA modeling for crane operation, in one particular
study, Wu et al. (2011) used FEA software as part of a three-
dimensional (3D) crane operation simulator engine, whose output
includes a series of images showing color-coded stresses on lifting
lugs/trunnions. This study provided a framework for analyzing the
impact of dynamic loading on the failure of these components (Wu
et al. 2011). Interestingly, while the boom buckling problem has
received a considerable amount of attention from researchers and
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 practitioners, theoretical studies and simulations regarding GBP are
numbered—some examples of which include research authored by
Anlin et al. (2012), Huang and Ji (2013), and Yao et al. (2015).
The traditional method for calculating GBP under the tracks
(or the outriggers) of a crawler (or wheeled) crane is based on
the fundamentals of statics in which the load of the crane-payload
system, expressed as static forces, is transmitted to the ground
through the area of the mat layer(s) with which it is in direct con-
tact. Under static conditions, the GBP calculations used to design
the mat support for cranes are often conducted by means of the
equations given by Shapiro and Shapiro (2010) or, alternatively,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
by computer implementation of these equations available from
crane manufacturers. In this respect, David Duerr (2010) presented
the industry practice for the selection of timber mats. Hasan et al.
(2010) also included the same design criteria to develop the re-
quired mat selection criterion based on the maximum pressure ex-
erted by the crane. David Duerr (2010) and Hasan et al. (2010) used
the two most commonly used techniques for the design of mats
(timber/steel): (1) the first depends on the mat length, which is
based on the allowable soil bearing capacity, and (2) the second
depends on the strength of the mat under loading. These approaches
have been adapted by many researchers to determine the GBP
under crane mats, not only for crawler cranes but also for hydraulic
cranes (PL calculations with slight modification) (Romanello 2020;
Shahnavaz et al. 2020; Yang et al. 2019). However, a more chal-
lenging issue when designing crane support (i.e., mats) to satisfy
the GBP constraint is the quantification of the effect of dynamic
loading associated with abrupt changes in the rotation speed of
the payload or by wind gusts acting on GBP (Korytov et al.
2020; Yang et al. 2019). A simplified method using linear optimi-
zation was formulated to simulate the effect of dynamic loading
(Zaretsky and Shapiro 1997). Although the traditional approach
is considered common knowledge among crane practitioners, its
use for developing the equations describing static or dynamic load-
ing requires simplifying the mechanical system under study in or-
der to keep the mathematical efforts manageable. As a result, to
avoid the risk of oversimplifying the mechanical system of interest
(or using unjustifiable simplifications), analysts often favor the ap-
plication of FEA, which not only can expedite modeling the propa-
gation of stress due to loading in complex mechanical machines
but, more importantly, can map (and quantify) their effect in a con-
tinuous manner. While FEA is commonly used in the context of
boom buckling, its application as an alternative (or complement)
to the traditional statics-based method for investigating GBP ap-
pears to be only marginally addressed in the literature devoted
to studying this problem in connection to crane stability (Anlin
et al. 2012; Huang and Ji 2013; Marquez et al. 2014; Yao et al.
2015). The work of Liu et al. (2008) can be considered an excep-
tion. According to their study, the soil type and the configuration of
the crane and mat determine the lower limit of the soil capacity
needed for the safe use of the crane. Interestingly, calculations
based on the equations for soil bearing capacity provide a con-
servative design criterion (Meyerhof 1956; Terzaghi Terzaghi
1943; Vesić 1973). Liu et al. (2008) performed computer simula-
tion using the two-dimensional (2D) finite-difference method and
subsequently compared the simulation with field studies using
crane and soil deflection under loading. It was determined that us-
ing the standard factor of safety (FS) of 2 or 3 for the traditional
calculations of soil bearing capacity can be misleading in the case
of crane use due to load variation and mat configuration. A new
method was proposed to calculate the soil bearing capacity
under crawler tracks based on the soil type and crane and mat
configurations (Liu et al. 2008).
© ASCE 04021038-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038
Another interesting study was conducted by Lin et al. (2017)
to determine the distribution of mobile crane loads under the out-
rigger; the study found that area preparation is required to place
the crane at the lifting location, wherein a rule of thumb calculation
is carried out due to the nonavailability of any actual load distri-
bution under the hydraulic mat. Furthermore, the investigation
was performed using a 2D axisymmetric model through FEA.
The outcome of their study indicates that the traditional method
of calculating GBP under the crane mat can be used considering
the outrigger mat as rigid with an increment of 10% as a safety
factor (Lin et al. 2017).
In the context of timber mats, Mahamid et al. (2017) experimen-
tally addressed the stability of cross-laminated timber mats (built
using southern yellow pine) under various loads and of various di-
mensions. The specimens were modeled in ANSYS with similar
properties. The graphical representation of the results indicated
that the finite-element simulation results were similar to the actual
lab test results (Mahamid et al. 2017). Therefore, the research
presented in the present study uses the mechanical properties of
various crane mat materials under similar boundary conditions. The
comparison in this paper provides the competitive position of ice
and frozen silt with respect to other mat materials case by case,
rather than calculating them individually using complex mat stabil-
ity equations and material properties.
The major focus of the present contribution is the use of frozen
silt or ice as a crane support, an application that cannot be properly
understood without taking into consideration soil mechanics. In
this regard, previous research has been carried out in which a
numerical model is developed in ANSYS in order to investigate
the performance of foundation under loading, with the authors
of the study observing that tensile strength plays an important role
in determining the strength of the soil. The ANSYS values were
compared with the experimental values, with the results showing
that ANSYS can be effective in simulating the behavior of soil
under footing (Elshesheny et al. 2015).
It should be noted that the seasonality of frozen ground also
influences the stability of a structure. In this regard, a recent study
simulated the impact of ground freezing on the mechanical behavior
of bridge pile foundations. In particular, a finite-element model was
developed to observe the impact of frozen silt on the bridge piles
during lateral loading and found favorable agreement with the field
data (Wenping et al. 2019). In a similar study, the impact of season-
ality of frozen ground on the Harbin–Dalian Passenger Dedicated
Line railway (China) was observed at different soil layers (24 loca-
tions) (Miao et al. 2020). The authors of this study came to the
conclusion that the most frost heave occurs in the top (well-graded)
gravel layer, representing 66% of the total deformation.
One of the main uses of frozen soil is the construction of winter
roads in North America and Eurasia. For example, in Canada, the
road system in the northern territories nearly doubles in winter due
to the addition of seasonal roads that are only available in winter
(Sladen et al. 2020). In considering the possibility of using frozen
silt for a similar application, the present study proposes a novel
approach using frozen silt for the purpose of crane matting.
Methodology and Case Examples
Because the objective of this research is to design a slab of ice or silt
to be used as part of the ground support system (which may include
timber or steel mats) for a high capacity crane, the first part of the
methodology involves determining the dynamics of the load trans-
fer from the crane and payload to the supporting layers. This quan-
titative analysis is then used to determine the parameters of the
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Parameters used for (a) crawler crane GBP (Pa); and (b) hydraulic crane PL (kN) calculations.

frozen layer (ice or silt) such that it has strength similar to a layer superstructure rotational axis; θcj = angle (degrees) of respective
of timber or steel mats of nominal sizes (e.g., 3.65 m × 2.44 m × part COG with the x-axis; W l = weight (kN) of the payload; Rl =
203 mm). The strength of the frozen layer is referred to in terms of crane radius (m); and θl = crane superstructure slew angle (degrees).
its timber mat equivalent. In the next section, the mathematical All these variables are shown in Fig. 3.
models addresses two elements: (1) the GBP (under crawler cranes) The variables in Eqs. (2) and (3), Ry and Rx , are calculated using
and the PL (under hydraulic cranes); and (2) the linear and non- Eqs. (4) and (5)
linear stress analysis for crane mats under identical boundary  n
conditions. 1 X
Ry ¼ W R sinðθsi þ θl Þ
W i¼1 si si
Xm 
GBP under Crawler Crane Tracks and PLs under þ W cj Rcj sin θcj þ W l Rl sin θl ð4Þ
Hydraulic Crane Outriggers j¼1
To operate mobile cranes safely, it is paramount to have a clear  n
understanding of the GBP. Traditionally, the calculations of the 1 X
Rx ¼ W R cosðθsi þ θl Þ
GBP under the supporting components of a crawler crane and of W i¼1 si si
the PL under hydraulic cranes are conducted by applying funda-
X
m 
mentals of statics, as given in the book Cranes and Derricks, þ W cj Rcj cos θcj þ W l Rl cos θl ð5Þ
4th edition, by Shapiro and Shapiro (2010). To calculate the j¼1
GBP under crawler tracks and the PL under hydraulic crane out-
riggers, the first step involves calculating the sum weight (kN) of Based on the preceding equations, the GBP under the crawler
the crane, including the payload and the location of the center of crane tracks and the PL under hydraulic crane outriggers can be
gravity (COG) using Eqs. (1)–(3), as shown subsequently calculated using Eqs. (6) and (7), respectively, in a unified matrix
X X    
n m
PLF PRF 4Gc νλ ð1 − νÞλ ð1 − λÞν
W¼ W si þ W cj þ W l ð1Þ ¼
i¼1 j¼1 PLR PRR aLe Be ð1 − νÞλ νλ ð1 − νÞð1 − λÞ
2 3
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ðabÞð2 − aÞ ðacÞð2 − aÞ
R¼ R2y þ R2x ð2Þ 6 7
× 4 ðabÞða − 1Þ ðacÞða − 1Þ 5 ð6Þ
b c
Ry
θ¼ tan−1 ð3Þ     
Rx FRR FLR ν 1−ν bð1 þ 2dÞ cð1 þ 2dÞ
¼ Gc
where W si = weight (kN) of n parts in crane superstructure; Rsi = FRF PLF 1−ν ν bð1 − 2dÞ cð1 − 2dÞ
distance (m) between respective part COG and the superstructure ð7Þ
rotational axis; θsi = angle (degrees) of respective part COG with
the x-axis when θl ¼ 0°; W cj = weight (kN) of m parts in the crane where PLF =PLR = GBP under the left front/rear track of crawler
carrier; Rcj = distance (m) between respective part COG and the crane; PRF =PRR = GBP under the right front/rear track of crawler

© ASCE 04021038-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038

 crane; FRR =FRF = PL on the right rear/front outrigger of the hy- directly under the crane track, based on the dimensions of the track,
draulic crane; and FLR =FLF = PL on left rear/front outrigger of a and are further distributed using crane mats (Al-Hussein et al. 2005;
hydraulic crane. The factors in Eqs. (6) and (7) are defined by Hasan et al. 2010; Shapiro and Shapiro 2010). For comparison pur-
Eqs. (8)–(16) poses, for hydraulic cranes, the PL is taken into consideration for
  mat selection, and for crawler cranes, the GBP values under the
1 j cosð270 þ θÞj track are taken into consideration for mat selection. Moreover,
μ¼ þ1 ð8Þ
2 cosð270 þ θÞ in the context of crawler cranes, the effective/bearing length and
  width of the crane track (contact area) is smaller than the actual
1 j cos θj physical length and the width of the crawler tracks, as shown in
ν¼ þ1 ð9Þ
2 cos θ Fig. 5 (Al-Hussein et al. 2005; Hasan et al. 2010; Shapiro and
Shapiro 2010).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

r ¼ Rj sin θj ð10Þ
W uniform (Shapiro and Shapiro 2010). However, in reality, the
Gc ¼ ð11Þ
4s
 
1 jLe − 6Rj cos θjj
λ¼ þ1 ð12Þ
2 Le − 6Rj cos θj
3 manufacturers, e.g., Manitowoc 18000 and Grove GMK 7550
a¼ ðL − 2Rj cos θjÞ ð13Þ
2Le e
b ¼ s − r þ 2μr ð14Þ
c ¼ s þ r − 2μr ð15Þ
Rj cos θj
d¼ ð16Þ
Le
where s = distance from the crane center to the center of crawler
width/outrigger; Be = width of the track; and Le = effective track
length/distance between two outriggers (lengthwise).
Alternatively, GBP and PL may be determined by means of FEA
modeling to provide a continuous map, which was the approach
used in the present study. To calibrate and to check the validity
of the developed FEA models, the GBP/PL values at specific points
from the FEA simulation are compared with the values calculated
manually by means of the preceding equations. Further to the val-
idation of the data used, the manually calculated values are be com-
pared with those calculated by software provided by the crane
manufacturer (Grove 2019; Manitowoc 2019).
The FEA-based simulations are generated for two types of mo-
bile cranes: (1) a crawler crane (Manitowoc 18000) for GBP in
which the ground-machine interface consists of two parallel rectan-
gular tracks; and (2) a hydraulic crane (Grove GMK 7550) for PL in
which the load transfer occurs at the outriggers (see flow chart
shown in Fig. 4).
Following the flowchart (Fig. 4), the finite-element model of
each crane is loaded into the FEA software (ANSYS 17.1). These
models can be sketched in the FEA drafting module or can be im-
ported from any other 3D source compatible with ANSYS. The
main inputs required are the weights of the various components
of the crane and the exact location of their center of gravity
(COG), which are obtained from the manufacturer of the selected
crane. Likewise, the same data are used for the manual calculations
of GBP/PL under the crane. The GBP values under the crawler
crane or the PL values for hydraulic cranes are obtained for crane
superstructure slew from 0° to 90°. It is worth noting in this study
that the traditional procedure of calculating the GBP values under
the crawler crane varies slightly from that used to calculate the PL
under the hydraulic crane. In the case of a hydraulic crane, the PL
under the outriggers are obtained and then distributed through out-
rigger mats per the mat surface area to get the GBP values. On the
other hand, the GBP values under the crawler crane are taken
Traditionally, for crawler cranes, the crawler crane track width-
wise pressure distribution under the track of the crane is considered
widthwise pressure distribution diagram is trapezoidal/triangular
in nature (Fig. 5). For this reason, FEA provides two values for
each side of the track—one maximum and one minimum. The aver-
age of these values is taken for comparison with those obtained
from manual calculations and with those obtained from the crane
(Al-Hussein et al. 2005, 2000; Grove 2019; Hasan et al. 2010;
Liu et al. 2008; Manitowoc 2019; Shapiro and Shapiro 2010).
In the case of the crawler crane Manitowoc 18000, the results
of the comparative analysis are obtained for three different crane
configurations (summarized in Tables 1–3). The variation of these
configurations is mainly of the payload and the lifting radius. As
the lifting radius changes, the COG of the boom also changes. From
a computer implementation perspective, running the FEA on the
problem at hand requires developing a 3D model of the crawler
crane. To keep the complexity of this design within reasonable
bounds and for the ease of FEA simulation, the crane components
are assigned to three major parts. The components of the first part
include the superstructure, counterweights, crane cabin, boom,
mast (if available), superlift-counterweights (if available), and the
load. The second part includes the crane carbody, crawler tracks,
and carbody counterweights. Finally, the third part contains steel
plates that act as pressure sensors whose function is to capture the
pressure profiles under the track. These plates are of the same area
as the effective/bearing area of the track for the GBP.
Before moving to the FEA simulation, the same geometrical
data is used to obtain a manual set of GBP values for the boom
slew angle in the range 0°–90° (crane front to crane left-side)
(Al-Hussein et al. 2005; Hasan et al. 2010; Shapiro and Shapiro
2010). The same configuration is used to obtain the GBP values
from the manufacturer’s software, Manitowoc Ground Bearing
Pressure Estimator Version: 1.0.6.0, which is available as freeware
from Manitowoc’s official website (Manitowoc 2019) as a set of
values for counterchecking both FEA and manual calculations
(Tables 1–3 and Fig. 4). It can be noted that the differences between
the manual calculations and the values from the Manitowoc soft-
ware are minimal. The percentage variation error between the
manual calculations and values from the Manitowoc software is
found to be less than 1% for all three cases. Further, the percentage
error between the FEA and the manual calculations is found to be
less than 1% (Table 4). The GBP values are presented in Fig. 6 for
the left front of the crawler crane for all three case examples
(Manitowoc 2019).
After obtaining the GBP validation using FEA for the crawler
crane FEA model, the next step is to obtain the same validation
for PL using FEA for the hydraulic crane FEA model, Grove
GMK7550 [Fig. 11(b)], which is an all-terrain crane. As the re-
sults of crawler cranes are favorable and create confidence in the
procedure adopted, only one case example for hydraulic cranes
is performed to validate the PL. The hydraulic crane selected is

© ASCE 04021038-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Flowchart for the crawler/hydraulic crane data flow for FEA crane model validation.

configured to have a boom length of 38.13 m (125.1 ft), a boom
configuration of [0-100-100-0], superstructure counterweights of
119,975 kg (264,500 lb), a lifting radius of 19.812 m (65 ft), a
lifting load of 40,000 kg (88,185 lb), an outrigger span of 28.7 ×
29.2 ft, and a surface operational condition of solid. In the case of
hydraulic cranes, as stated previously, the manufacturer’s software
and manual calculations only provide the PL in the form of the
force on each outrigger, so only the PLs are compared. An online
application for PL calculations is available from the hydraulic crane
manufacturer (Grove 2019); however, this online application only
provides outrigger PL at particular angles with increments of 45°.
To facilitate manual calculations with respect to the online appli-
cation, the superstructure slew angle is taken from 0° to 360° from
the rear to the right side with increments of 45° [Fig. 7(a)] (Grove
2019). The percentage variation between the manual calculations
and the Grove online application (Grove 2019) values are found
to be approximately 1.66% [Fig. 7(a)]. The reason for this higher
variation is that the weights of crane parts and their respective
COGs are not available from the manufacturer, although the PL
values are available from the online Grove application at various
angles. By utilizing these PL values against different angles and
the use of GBP equations with weights and COGs as unknown var-
iables, the required crane data is obtained (Al-Hussein et al. 2005;
Hasan et al. 2010; Shapiro and Shapiro 2010).
Subsequently, the top surface of the mat under the hydraulic
crane is utilized as a sensor to obtain the values of PL. The values
from the FEA are plotted against manual calculations as presented
in Fig. 7(b), and it is found that the variation in the values is
approximately 0.37% (with respect to the largest value), which
is less than 1%.
Linear and Nonlinear Stress Analysis
The GBP and PL crane analyses pave the way for the mat strength
study. The analysis conducted in the previous section develops a set
of boundary conditions that can subsequently be used for the linear

© ASCE 04021038-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038

 Table 3. Case examples for Manitowoc 18000
Weight (ton) Lifting radius) Weight (ton) Lifting radius
Description (manual) (manual) (FEA) (FEA)
Case-1 50.000 25.917 49.998 25.917
Case-2 75.000 21.336 74.996 21.358
Case-3 100.000 19.812 99.996 19.812

Table 4. Variation (%) of GBP (Pa) values between manual, Manitowoc,

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and FEA calculation (Manitowoc 18000)

Description Case-1 Case-2 Case-3
Variation (%) between manual and 0.054 0.049 0.036
Manitowoc software calculations
Variation (%) between manual and 0.518 0.506 0.473
FEA calculations

simulation is to display the results. The results can be displayed

Fig. 5. Effective/bearing: (a) length; (b) width; (c) traditional; and
(d) FEA load distribution. (Images by authors.)
Table 1. Manitowoc 18000 crane configuration
Crane component Configuration
Boom 85.344 m (280 ft) #55 OR #55A
Carbody counterweight 145,150 kg (320,000 lb)
Superstructure counterweight 239,500 kg (528,000 lb)
and nonlinear stress analyses. Following the same boundary con-
ditions as verified in the previous section, the idea is to compare the
behavior of different crane mat materials rather than calculating the
values and further verifying them with manual calculations and lab
testing values. This decreases the requirement for the verification of
results, as the timber mat can serve as the benchmark for the frozen
silt. Because the value proposition is to replace timber mats with
frozen silt in winter, the stress and deflection variation with respect
to the timber mat is observed. For the mat strength and deformation
analysis, the overall simulation process is divided into six steps, as
shown in Fig. 8. The main concern for the FEA simulation is the
accuracy of the crane model and the output results under the same
boundary conditions. The crane GBP calculations shown in the
“GBP” section are used to determine the accuracy of the FEA crane
model, which shows that the pressure that the FEA crane model is
exerting on the crane mats is realistic. The boundary conditions
need to be defined to simulate the crane mat bending and the stress
distribution under the crane loading. The final step in this
in many ways, including normal stresses, principal stresses, forces,
energy, deformation, and so forth, along with the crane superstruc-
ture slew. For the material comparison in this research, only the
normal stress (Pa) distribution (negative due to compression) under
the mat and the mat deflection (mm) are considered. First, the mats
under the crawler crane (Manitowoc 18000) are analyzed, and sub-
sequently, the mats under the hydraulic crane (GMK 7550) are
analyzed.
As mentioned previously, for the mat strength analysis, four mat
materials (G40.21-44W, Coastal Douglas fir, ice, and frozen silt)
are selected. For each of these materials, five linear mechanical
properties and one nonlinear mechanical property are selected for
FEA. To build the comparison, ice and frozen silt are considered as
proposed materials for use as crane mats. The temperature of the
frozen silt and ice is −10°C for analysis purposes (Andersland et al.
2003). The mechanical properties of the frozen silt mat under in-
vestigation are taken from the research done by Yang et al. (2015)
on specimens composed of silt from the Campbell Creek Bridge
case project in Anchorage, Alaska (seasonally frozen soil), and
the CRREL Permafrost Tunnel in Fox, Alaska (permafrost, frozen
for two consecutive seasons). The values of the mechanical proper-
ties of these materials are presented in Table 5.
To simplify the analysis, all of the mat models developed for
FEA simulation are carried out, assuming that the mechanical prop-
erties of the four materials are isotropic in nature. The mat model is
placed under the crane track/outrigger. There are various sizes of
crane mats available in the market, and most of the time, they are
custom-made (Matrax 2020). The selection of mats size is deter-
mined, based on the GBP and the soil bearing capacity, as demon-
strated in the literature review. Applying the same selection criteria,
for the research described in this paper, the suitable mat size for
the traditional mat materials (Coastal Douglas fir and steel) and

Table 2. Manitowoc 18000 crane parts and respective COGs

Weight (ton) COG distance (m) from Weight COG distance (m) from
Description (manual) CL of rotation (manual) (ton) (FEA) CL of rotation (FEA)
Boom 118.358 11.256 118.360 11.270
Upper 346.351 −5.985 346.350 −5.985
Crawler 249.719 −0.176 249.720 −0.176
Length of bearing crawler (m) 8.839 (manual—center to center) 8.840 (FEA—center to center)
Distance between crawler (m) 8.534 (manual—center to center) 8.534 (FEA—center to center)

© ASCE 04021038-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. GBP (Pa) (minimum principal stress) values from Manitowoc computer application, manual calculations, and FEA simulation calculations on
left front crawler crane, Manitowoc 18000.

Fig. 7. (a) PL (kN) values from Grove online application and manual calculations; and (b) PL (kN) values from manual calculations and FEA
simulation under right rear outrigger of the hydraulic crane (Grove GMK7550).

for the frozen silt mat is 12 ft × 8 ft × 8 in., while the suitable size
of the ice mat for the crawler crane is assumed to be 12 ft × 8 ft ×
2.62 ft, and for the hydraulic crane, the suitable size of the ice mat
is assumed to be 12 ft × 8 ft × 4.3 ft. The thickness of ice mats is
different from all other mats due to its low Young’s modulus. The
sizes of the mats can be changed in the future to observe the sim-
ulation of FEA with various mat sizes. Along with normal stresses,
the ground deflection is also considered for the comparative analy-
sis, so the ground properties need to be added to simulate the stress
distribution. The soil parameters considered for this research are
listed in Table 6 (Yang et al. 2010). The soil under the mats is mod-
eled per the Drucker-Prager theory (Ravishankar and Satyam
2013). The model was first presented by D. C. Drucker in 1952 and
is based on the elastic–plastic constitutive relationship (Drucker
and Prager 1952). It is important to indicate in this study that
for FEA analysis, only one crane configuration for each crawler
crane and the hydraulic crane is selected.
Following the flowchart for FEA, as shown in Fig. 9(a), a case
example of a Manitowoc 18000 crane (crawler crane) with boom
slew angles ranging from 0° to 90° from the front to the left side and
with a load of 50,000 kg (110,231.13 lb) at a lifting radius of
25.917 m (85 ft) is considered and simulated. Coastal Douglas fir,
steel mats, and test mats (ice and frozen silt) are placed under
the respective crawler crane tracks, as shown in Fig. 9(b). During
the rotation of the superstructure, the GBP under the crawler track
varies with the change in the boom slew angle. With the change
of the GBP, the stresses developed in the mat also change. These
stresses are transferred to the ground through the mat, which results
in the deflection of the mat and the deflection (settlement) of the
ground. Figs. 10(a and b) show the minimum normal stress
(negative due to compression) under the left front mat and the left
rear mat, respectively.
Besides normal stresses, mat deflection is also a major concern
in the selection of a crane mat. Fig. 11(a) shows the mat deflection
under loading (under similar boundary conditions) under the left
front mat. Under loading conditions, the maximum deflection is
that of the ice mat. The best performer is found to be G40.21-
44W. An acceptable deflection is 1% per ISO4305:1991(E); how-
ever, for this simulation, a 0.75% deflection along the length of the
mat is considered a conservative value (ISO 1991). The results
show that all the mat materials fall within an acceptable range ac-
cording to industry standards. In this mat stress and deflection
analysis, the frozen silt and Coastal Douglas fir are comparable
and relatively similar. As the mechanical properties of both are sim-
ilar, this is evidence that frozen silt may behave similarly to timber
(i.e., Coastal Douglas fir) under loading, provided the conditions
are favorable, such as the mat surface temperature, frozen silt com-
position, ambient temperature, and soil composition (ground).
Besides considering the normal stress values under mats and
mat deflection as mentioned previously, Fig. 12 shows the normal
stress variation profile along the length of the mat under left-front
crane tracks. In this regard, Fig. 12 shows how the stresses are
transferred from the center of the mat to the edge of the mat.
For steel (G40.21-44W), the variation is less in comparison with

© ASCE 04021038-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. ANSYS problem-solving sequence (ANSYS Mechanical Workbench 17.1).

Table 5. Linear and nonlinear mechanical properties for FEA

Description Units G40.21-44W Coastal Douglas fir Ice Frozen silt
Young’s modulus MPa 200,000a 13,400b 9.0c 10,000d,e
Poisson’s ratio — 0.3a 0.449a 0.3c 0.3f
Tensile yield strength MPa 350a 2.3c 3.1g 5.1d
Compressive yield strength MPa 152h 5.0b 25c 5.0d
Tensile ultimate strength MPa 450a 5.0b 3.1c 5.1d
Tangent modulus MPa 504a 110a 0 0
a
Data from Green et al. (1999).
b
Data from Kretschmann (2010).
c
Data from Schulson (1999).
d
Data from Yang et al. (2015).
e
Data from Ralph Wilson (1982).
f
Data from Andersland et al. (2003).
g
Data from Petrovic (2003).
h
Data from Boyer and Gall (1985).

other materials, and the stress is uniform over the length of the steel
mat. This can be explained by the higher tensile strength, compres-
sive strength, and the value of Young’s modulus of steel in com-
parison to those of Coastal Douglas fir, ice, and frozen silt.
The stress profiles for Coastal Douglas fir and frozen silt are
similar to each other, which is further evidence that the behavior
of frozen silt is relatively similar to that of Coastal Douglas fir.
For frozen silt and Coastal Douglas fir, the compressive stresses
(normal stresses in negative) reach the maximum in the center
of the mat (lengthwise), and as it moves away from the center,
the stress profile moves up and decreases in value along the length
of the mat—like an inverse bell curve with the maximum value in
the center of the mat. It is noteworthy that the stress profile for
Coastal Douglas fir and frozen silt tilts toward the left side of
the crane, which is in accordance with the rotation of the
superstructure.
The strength of ice is greater when compared to G40.21-44W.
The main reason is the mat thickness: for all other mats, the
mat thickness is 8″ (0.2032 m), but to make ice comparable with
respect to deflection and stress distribution to the other materials,

© ASCE 04021038-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038

 Table 6. Soil properties for mat investigation the ice mat thickness is 2.62′ (0.8 m). If the thickness of ice is
Property Value Unit 8″ (0.2032 m), the compressive stresses (normal stress in the neg-
ative) would be lower than that of frozen silt mat and Coastal
Density 1,900 kg=m3
Isotropic elasticity
Douglas fir.
Derive from Young’s modulus — Following the same procedure as was followed for the crawler
Young’s modulus 4 × 107 Pa crane stress analysis, the configuration of the hydraulic crane
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 — GMK7550 is provided in the “Ground Bearing Pressure” section.
Bulk modulus 3.33 × 107 Pa For mat strength analysis, the normal stresses under the mat are
Shear modulus 1.538 × 107 Pa obtained by rotating the superstructure of the FEA crane model
Drucker-Prager (using ANSYS), simulating the actual crane operation, creating
Drucker-Prager base — — pressure on the outrigger mats. During the simulation, the boom
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Uniaxial compressive strength 1 × 105 Pa

slews from the right rear to the right side, and so the stress values
Uniaxial tensile strength 1 × 10−19 Pa
Biaxial compressive strength 1.1 × 105 Pa are taken for the right rear and right front outrigger mats. For the
Failure plane data set-1 right rear outrigger, during the load slew, the stress value increases
Inner friction angle 0.010656 radian in magnitude (compression stress) initially, but decreases later be-
Initial cohesion 10,000 Pa cause the maximum compressive stress value (negative normal
Dilatancy angle 0.0015231 radian stress) occurs when the boom is directly over the outrigger. Beyond
Residual inner friction angle 0.0097478 radian that point, the stress value decreases in magnitude as the load
Residual cohesion 10,000 Pa moves away from the outrigger. Fig. 13 shows the minimum nor-
Source: Data from Yang et al. (2010). mal stress under the right rear and right front outrigger mat.

Fig. 9. (a) Flowchart for crane mat strength analysis; and (b) relative positions of the crane, mat, and soil for analysis.

Fig. 10. Normal minimum stress (Pa) under (a) left front mat; and (b) left rear mat (for Manitowoc 18000).

© ASCE 04021038-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. (a) Left front mat deflection (mm) (Manitowoc 18000); and (b) right rear mat (mm) deflection (Grove GMK7550).
Considering the load pattern and mat behavior under the hy-
draulic crane outrigger, the pressure exerted by the outrigger results
in the bending of the mat and the deflection (settlement) of the
ground under the mat. Fig. 11(b) shows the mat deflection under
the right rear outrigger; it was found that the conservative industry
benchmark is much lower in comparison with all the mat material
specimens considered in the present study (ISO 1991).
Fig. 14 shows the normal stress variation profile along the width
of the mat. In contrast to the crawler cranes, the location of the
stress profile is taken in the center of the mat because the outrigger
exerts maximum pressure in the center of the mat, and the stress
profile (line) is taken at the edge of the mat. The stress distribution
profile for Coastal Douglas fir and frozen silt are similar in nature
and look like inverse bell curves.
In the case of the hydraulic crane, the stress values, the mat de-
flection, and the stress profile of ice under the outrigger is also fa-
vorable in comparison to frozen silt and Coastal Douglas fir. It is
important to mention again that the thickness of the ice mat under
the hydraulic crane is 4.3 ft (1.3 m) instead of the typical mat thick-
ness of 8 in. (0.2032 m) due to its low Young’s modulus.
Cost Estimation and Comparison for Frozen Silt Mat
The next step is to estimate the cost (and, therefore, the practicality)
of using frozen silt as a crane mat and for the value proposition of
the frozen mat. For comparison purposes, a hypothetical case sce-
nario is assumed for the Cutbank Ridge project in Dawson Creek,
British Columbia, Canada. The crane assumption is Manitowoc
18000 for this hypothetical project. It is a crawler crane requiring
eight timber mats (3.6449 × 2.4384 × 0.2032 m)—four for each
track—or, in the case of using frozen silt mats, two frozen silt mats
(14.58 × 2.4384 × 0.2032 m). The cost breakdown is shown in
Table 7. For the three winter months, it is estimated that a crane mat
company can save approximately $2,276.24. If the surface temper-
ature of the frozen silt mat is not at the required level, the AGF can
be utilized.
Conclusion, Recommendations, and Future Work
The cases presented in the “GBP” section (crawler crane and hy-
draulic crane case examples) are used to develop a GBP and PL
© ASCE 04021038-12
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038
verification for the accuracy of an FEA crane model for mat stress
analysis. The results for the crawler crane GBP values create con-
fidence in the use of FEA as an alternative to calculate the GBP
under the tracks, and the same can be said in the case of the hydraulic
crane example. It is important to bear in mind that when the part
weights and COGs are equal, it is observed from this research that
FEA also provides the same value for GBP/PL as the manufacturer’s
software, and FEA also provides the same values as the manual cal-
culations (Grove 2019; Manitowoc 2019). If there were a difference
in the values, this would indicate that an error exists either in the
software calculations, in the manual calculations, or in the FEA.
The results from the GBP/PL verification establish a strong case
for the use of FEA for crane mat material comparison with the same
boundary conditions. Because the benchmark material is timber mat,
it is easy to observe the behavior of frozen silt and ice under similar
conditions to those when timber mats are used, without going into
detail for actual stress deflection values.
From the mechanical property comparison analysis, it is inferred
that frozen silt mat can be used as an alternative to timber mat for
crane support provided that the load is fully distributed, and the tem-
perature required for the frozen silt (−10°C or below) is achieved and
maintained. Ice can also be used, but due to its low Young’s modulus,
it requires more thickness to compete with the mechanical properties
of Coastal Douglas fir or frozen silt. The mechanical properties of the
frozen silt mat under investigation are taken from the research done
by Ralph Wilson (1982) and Yang et al. (2015). Based on the
mechanical properties, there is a strong possibility that ice and frozen
silt could be used for crane support, especially in cold regions where
the temperature is favorable to achieve freezing, whether naturally or
by means of artificial ground freezing.
Another phenomenon is observed during the FEA simulation of
these mats using ANSYS, wherein in the case of Coastal Douglas fir
and frozen silt, an insufficient mat thickness does not distribute the
GBP completely, and due to the bending of the mat and its deflection,
the edges of the mat leave the ground surface and shows positive
normal stress at the edges. The stress profiles of Coastal Douglas
fir, frozen silt, and ice shown in Fig. 12 indicate that the edges
are not taking any load because the stresses at the edges are above
0 Pa (positive). The load distribution is such that the loading length of
the mat decreases in comparison to the actual length of the mat. More-
over, the compressive stress profile under the front left mat is tilted
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Normal stress (Pa) variation profile under left front crane mats (for Manitowoc 18000 crane).

Fig. 13. Normal minimum stress (Pa) under (a) right rear; and (b) right front mat (Grove GMK 7550 crane).

© ASCE 04021038-13 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Normal stress (Pa) variation profile under right rear crane mats (Grove GMK 7550).

Table 7. Cost comparison between timber mats and frozen silt mats
Description Units Timber mats (8 mats) Frozen silt (4 mats)
Capital cost for crane mats $ 13,600 0 (naturally frozen ground)
Lifespan of mats Years 3 Not applicable
Capital cost for three winter months $ 1,133 0
Transportation cost (500 km) $ 1,143 0
Mat laying cost $ Assumed to be the same for both
Total cost (savings) $ 2,276 0

toward the load side during crane slew in the case of frozen silt, ice,
and Coastal Douglas fir. It is significant to mention that the compres-
sive stress value is at its maximum when the boom is right over the
crawler track or outrigger during crane superstructure slew.
The cost comparison (section “Cost Estimation and Comparison
for Frozen Silt Mat”) gives an overview of the practicability of fro-
zen silt mat. The crane mat rental company can save capital by us-
ing the frozen silt mat in place of timber mats in winter months,
provided that the ambient temperature in winter months in the given
region is favorable for the freezing process.
This research contribution can provide a starting point for the
feasibility of using a frozen silt mat for crane support. For practical
application, the freezing process needs to be investigated with
actual industrial numbers and procedures. In regions where the
temperature is above −10°C, AGF can be used to prepare these
mats (Andersland et al. 2003; Harris 1994). An estimation of the
cooling needs and costs is required to conduct a comparison be-
tween traditional matting solutions (steel and timber mats) and fro-
zen silt or ice mat solution. A complete SWOT (strength, weakness,
opportunity, and threats) analysis would be required to establish a
market study for this new approach (McNutt 1991).
As the ambient temperature is the critical factor, the present
study assumes −10°C is the frozen silt/ice mat surface temperature,
resulting in the frozen silt mat properties’ being comparable to
those of Coastal Douglas fir; however, the properties change with
fluctuations in the frozen silt/ice mat surface temperature. Further
research is required to define the changes in mat properties with
respect to mat surface temperature.
The results of these FEA simulations for GBP/PL indicate that
the load distribution under the mat is nonuniform in nature. This

© ASCE 04021038-14 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038

 phenomenon warrants further study to estimate the bending and
stability of crane mats made of frozen silt.
Only a few mechanical properties are compared, but it is ex-
pected that future research can incorporate additional mechanical
properties. In the case of frozen silt, cracking and fracking, as major
contributors to eventual structural failure, would need to be inves-
tigated in a lab environment before site testing. Moreover, for
frozen silt mats, future research can investigate other soil types
(such as sand, clay, loam, and chalky soil) in order to establish an
empirical relationship between mat strength, soil composition,
water content, and mat temperature, which could be verified by lab
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and site testing.
The US dollar values mentioned in the “Cost Estimation and
Comparison for Frozen Silt Mat” section are meant to illustrate
the usefulness of the new technology. Spatial constraints prevent
us from going into detail about the cost breakdown in this study.
Although a detailed cost breakdown is outside the scope of the
present work, a detailed analysis of these results, as well as the
assumptions underlying their calculations, will be provided in a fu-
ture contribution. Regarding the cost comparison of AGF for frozen
silt mats, it is also important to mention that the use of AGF for the
preparation of frozen silt mats is presented in a previous contribu-
tion by the authors (Ali et al. 2019a). The next step in this regard is
the cost estimation for the preparation of frozen silt mat using AGF,
which involves incorporating all the activities involved in the direct
or indirect AGF process.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request. This includes FEA generated data, FEA crane models,
FEA boundary conditions, crane details, and so forth.
References
Alberta Government. 2019. “Alberta major projects.” Accessed July 24, 2019.
http://majorprojects.alberta.ca/#map/?sector=Oil-and-Gas,Pipelines&type
=Oil-and-Gas_Gas,Oil-and-Gas_Oil-Sands:-In-Situ,Oil-and-Gas_Oil
-Sands:-Mining,Oil-and-Gas_Upgrader.
Al-Hussein, M., S. Alkass, and O. Moselhi. 2000. “D-CRANE: A database
system for utilization of cranes.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 27 (6): 1130–1138.
https://doi.org/10.1139/l00-039.
Al-Hussein, M., S. Alkass, and O. Moselhi. 2005. “Optimization algorithm
for selection and on site location of mobile cranes.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 131 (5): 579–590. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364
(2005)131:5(579).
Ali, G. M., M. Al-Hussein, and A. Bouferguene. 2019a. “Use of finite
element analysis for the estimate of freezing & maintenance phase of
indirect & direct artificial ground freezing of proposed frozen silt mat,
an alternative of timber mat.” In Proc., 2019 Int. Symp. on Automation
and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), 846–853. London: The
International Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction.
https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2019/0114.
Ali, G. M., M. Al-Hussein, A. Bouferguene, and J. Kosa. 2019b. “Com-
petitive finite element analysis (ANSYS) for the use of ice & frozen silt
as a supporting structural material, an alternative to the traditional
crawler crane mat material (S355, G40.21 & Coastal Douglas-fir).”
In Proc., CSCE Annual Conf. Growing with youth—Croître avec les
jeunes, 10. Pointe Claire, QC, Canada: Canadian Society of Civil
Engineering.
Andersland, O. B., B. Ladanyi, and ASCE. 2003. Frozen ground engineer-
ing. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Anlin, W., J. Tao, D. Yaning, and L. Fei. 2012. “Study on structural insta-
bility of large crawler crane boom structure.” In Vol. 116 of Proc., 3rd
© ASCE 04021038-15
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038
Int. Conf. on Teaching and Computational Science, Advanced Technol-
ogy in Teaching, edited Y. Wu, 401–406. Berlin: Springer. https://doi
.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11276-8_52.
Beavers, J. E., J. R. Moore, R. Rinehart, and W. R. Schriver. 2006. “Crane-
related fatalities in the construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
132 (9): 901–910. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)
132:9(901).
Boyer, H. E., and T. L. Gall. 1985. Metals handbook desk. Edited by J. R.
Davis. Cleveland, OH: American Society for Metals.
David Duerr, P. E. 2010. “Effective bearing length of crane mats.” In
Crane & rigging conference, 1–8. Houston: 2DM Associates.
Drucker, D. C., and W. J. Prager. 1952. “Soil mechanics and plastic analysis
or limit design.” Q. Appl. Math. 10 (2): 157–165. https://doi.org/10
.1090/qam/48291.
Elshesheny, A., N. Nagy, and A. Belal. 2015. “Numerical evaluation of
bearing capacity of square footing on geosynthetic reinforced sand.”
In Proc., Int. Conf. on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineer-
ing. Ottawa: International ASET Inc.
Environment and Climate Change. 2019. “1981–2010 climate normals &
averages.” Accessed July 24, 2019. http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate
_normals/index_e.html.
Green, D. W., J. E. Winandy, and D. E. Kretschmann. 1999. “Mechanical
properties of wood.” Accessed February 12, 2018. https://www.fpl.fs
.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch04.pdf.
Grove. 2019. “GMK legacy models outrigger pad load calculator.” Ac-
cessed July 24, 2019. https://www.manitowoccranes.com/en/Tools/lift
-planning/Outrigger-Pad-Load-Calculators/All-Terrain.
Haniszewski, T. 2017. “Modeling the dynamics of cargo lifting process by
overhead crane for dynamic overload factor estimation.” J. Vibroengin-
eering 19 (1): 75–86. https://doi.org/10.21595/jve.2016.17310.
Harris, J. S. 1994. Ground freezing in practice. London: Thomas Telford.
Hasan, S., M. Al-Hussein, U. Hermann, and H. Safouhi. 2010. “Interactive
and dynamic integrated module for mobile cranes supporting system
design.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (2): 179–186. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000121.
Huang, X. L., and A. M. Ji. 2013. “Analysis of nonlinear local buckling of
crane telescopic boom.” Appl. Mech. Mater. 387: 197–201. https://doi
.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.387.197.
ISO. 1991. Mobile crane: Determination of stability. ISO 4305:1991(E).
Geneva: ISO.
Korytov, M. S., V. S. Shcherbakov, V. V. Titenko, and V. E. Belyakov. 2020.
“Study of the crawler crane stability affected by the length of compen-
sating ropes and platform rotation angle in the mode of movement with
payload.” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1546: 12135. https://doi.org/10.1088
%2F1742-6596%2F1546%2F1%2F012135.
Kretschmann, D. E. 2010. “Mechanical properties of wood.” Accessed
February 12, 2018. https://charlespetersonflooring.com/wp-content
/uploads/2014/04/chapter_05.pdf.
Lee, J., I. Phillips, and Z. Lynch. 2020. “Causes and prevention of mobile
crane-related accidents in South Korea.” Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon.
14: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2020.1775384.
Lin, M., N. Duong, L. Deng, U. Hermann, T. Zubick, Z. Lei, and S. Adeeb.
2017. “An investigation of the distribution of mobile crane loads for
construction projects.” In CSCE leadership in sustainable infrastruc-
ture, 9. Pointe Claire, QC, Canada: Canadian Society of Civil
Engineering.
Liu, X., D. H. Chan, and B. Gerbrandt. 2008. “Bearing capacity of soils for
crawler cranes.” Can. Geotech. J. 45 (9): 1282–1302. https://doi.org/10
.1139/T08-056.
Mahamid, M., T. Brindley, N. Triandafilou, and S. Domagala. 2017.
“Behavior and strength characteristics of cross-laminated timber mats:
Experimental and numerical study.” In Structures Congress 2017: Busi-
ness, professional practice, education, research, and disaster manage-
ment, 254–268. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061
/9780784480427.022.
Manitowoc. 2019. “Ground bearing pressure estimator.” Accessed
January 9, 2019. https://www.manitowoccranes.com/en/Tools/lift
-planning/ground-bearing-pressure.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Marquez, A., P. Venturino, and J. L. Otegui. 2014. “Common root causes in
recent failures of cranes.” Eng. Fail. Anal. 39: 55–64. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.01.012.
Matrax. 2020. “One size does not fit all.” Accessed July 6, 2020. https://
matraxinc.com/.
McNutt, K. 1991. “SWOT before you start.” Accessed January 12,
2019. https://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/Abstract/1991/01000
/SWOT_Before_You_Start.9.aspx.
Meyerhof, G. G. 1956. “Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesion-
less soil.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 82 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10
.1061/JSFEAQ.0000001.
Miao, Q., F. Niu, Z. Lin, J. Luo, and M. Liu. 2020. “Comparing frost heave
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LIBRARY on 04/27/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
characteristics in cut and embankment sections along a high-speed
railway in seasonally frozen ground of Northeast China.” Cold Reg.
Sci. Technol. 170 (Feb): 102921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions
.2019.102921.
Newton, C. 2017. “Construction complete on three gas plants near Dawson
Creek.” Accessed January 9, 2020. https://www.energeticcity.ca/2017
/11/construction-complete-three-gas-plants-near-dawson-creek/.
Petrovic, J. 2003. “Review mechanical properties of ice and snow.”
J. Mater. Sci. 38 (1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021134128038.
Ralph Wilson, C. 1982. “Dynamic properties of naturally frozen Fairbanks
silt.” Master’s thesis, Oregan State Univ. Libraries & Press, Oregon
State Univ. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis
_or_dissertations/5x21th54x.
Ravishankar, P., and D. N. Satyam. 2013. “Finite element modeling to
study soil structure interaction of asymmetrical tall buildings.” In Proc.,
Workshop of TC207 during the 18th Int. Conf. on Soil-Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, 7. London: International Society for Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Romanello, G. 2020. “A graphical approach for the determination of out-
rigger loads in mobile cranes.” Mech. Based Des. Struct. Mach. 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15397734.2020.1726184.
Schulson, E. M. 1999. “The structure and mechanical behavior of ice.”
JOM 51 (2): 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-999-0206-4.
Shahnavaz, F., H. Taghaddos, R. S. Najafabadi, and U. Hermann. 2020.
“Multi crane lift simulation using building information modeling.”
Autom. Constr. 118 (Oct): 103305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon
.2020.103305.
Shapiro, J., and L. Shapiro. 2010. Cranes and derricks. 4th ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill Professional.
Sladen, W. E., S. A. Wolfe, and P. D. Morse. 2020. “Evaluation of threshold
freezing conditions for winter road construction over discontinuous
© ASCE 04021038-16
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2021, 147(6): 04021038
permafrost peatlands, subarctic Canada.” Cold Reg. Sci. Technol.
170 (2): 102930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2019.102930.
Slowey, K. 2020. “Alaska construction spending to near $7B in 2020.”
Accessed July 6, 2020. https://www.constructiondive.com/news
/alaska-construction-spending-to-near-7b-in-2020/571813/.
Terzaghi Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley.
Vesić, A. S. 1973. “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.”
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 99 (1): 45–73. https://doi.org/10.1061
/JSFEAQ.0001846.
Wenping, F., Z. J. Yang, and T. Sun. 2019. “Ground freezing impact on
laterally loaded pile foundations considering strain rate effect.” Cold
Reg. Sci. Technol. 157 (Jan): 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.coldregions.2018.09.006.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2020. “Anchorage WSCMO AP,
Alaska.” Accessed July 6, 2020. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN
.pl?akanch.
Wu, D., Y. Lin, X. Wang, X. Wang, and S. Gao. 2011. “Algorithm of crane
selection for heavy lifts.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 25 (1): 57–65. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000065.
Yang, Q., F. Qu, Z. Yu, and Z. Xie. 2019. “Stress and stability analysis of
slewing motion for crawler crane mounted on flexible ground.” Eng.
Fail. Anal. 105: 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019
.07.005.
Yang, X., Z. Xiu, L. Zhang, and X. Yan. 2010. “3D simulation of weak
foundation for good-sized oil storage tank.” In Proc., 2010 Int. Conf.
on Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering, 1345–1348.
New York: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/MACE.2010.5536276.
Yang, Z., B. Still, and X. Ge. 2015. “Mechanical properties of seasonally
frozen and permafrost soils at high strain rate.” Cold Reg. Sci. Technol.
113 (May): 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2015.02.008.
Yao, J., X. Qiu, Z. Zhou, Y. Fu, F. Xing, and E. Zhao. 2015. “Buckling
failure analysis of all-terrain crane telescopic boom section.” Eng. Fail.
Anal. 57 (Nov): 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.07
.038.
Zaretsky, A. A., and H. I. Shapiro. 1997. “Overturning stability of a
free standing crane under dynamic loading.” In Proc., 1997 SAE Int.
Off-Highway and Powerplant Congress and Exposition, 184–192. War-
rendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. https://doi.org/10.4271
/972721.
Zdravković, N., M. Savković, G. Marković, D. Pršić, and G. Pavlović.
2019. “Numerical solution for the deflection of the column-mounted
jib crane structure.” Mech. Transp. Commun. 17 (3): 9.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.